It's funny that people still think that if you pass tests you are clean.
I don't think it means you are clean. I think the more someone is tested, the more likely they are to get busted for doping. There are lots of American athletes who just haven't been caught.
You never get caught if they aren't testing for the right things. So it really doesn't matter how many times you test if the testing protocol is for things from a decade ago.
Huh? She hasn't earned appearance fees or prize money. She has been banned since being framed for doping. You will be banned for posting false information.
She was caught with banned steroids in her body.
Even if you think she ingested them accidentally, how do you call this being "framed"?
Ayotte's own papers, it would be sufficient to eat as little as half an ounce (14 grams) of nandrolone rich offal, including fat in a greasy burrito. The concentrated nandrolone in offal could have easily been chopped up and cooked with the greasy pork meat, or ground up in chorizo. These possibilities were not addressed in testimony that was inexplicably limited to pork meat and stomach.
No where in my statement was I defending her. It wasn't meant to be a defense. It was meant to add some context to the post previous saying she wasn't tested much during her ban. I stated she was frequently tested during her ban.
No where in my statement was I defending her. It wasn't meant to be a defense. It was meant to add some context to the post previous saying she wasn't tested much during her ban. I stated she was frequently tested during her ban.
Come on, you literally laughed out loud when you wrote "I never started the lies and deflections."!
Your lies just in that post I was citing before include "one of several things that were wrong about this case", "testimony that was inexplicably limited to pork meat and stomach", plus all the deflections about 130 ng/ml, "as little as half an ounce (14 grams)", Chorizo and what not.
I just explained to you, again, that there was nothing "inexplicable" about that testimony, and now you are doubling down again on your stupid lie.
Try to understand this: Shelburrito claimed offal from a specific food truck. As "specific and concrete elements", she provided to AIU/WA/CAS the invoice over pork stomach and meat as ingredients. To her credit, and to your dismay and discredit, she never ever claimed that her offal included any nandrolone-rich ingredients such as testicles. Facts are facts. Therefore the expert testimony was logically "limited to pork meat and stomach".
This case is about a specific food truck serving a specific offal with specific ingredients, namely "pork meat and stomach", as you put it. Whatever else you may find on the internet is completely irrelevant here.
Try to let this sink in from the independent scientist Tucker, here on letsrun, where he clearly explains why:
"So yes, based on what we see in the Reasoned Decision, it’s a pretty clear case."
Finally, you are not citing Tygart with the unsubstantiated "he's more skeptical...". You are citing a BTC/Nike fan paraphrasing what Tygart allegedly said (note the "he"). His "by the book(s)" on the other hand is straight from his mouth, however, very much to your dismay and discredit.
Sorry but these are neither lies nor deflections. When the claim is a burrito containing offal, all of the pork based ingredients found in a burrito become relevant, until they are ruled out.
Note that chorizo was one of the edible pork ingredients identified. So was "grease". Both of these are potential sources of endogenous nandrolone. These were inexplicably not addressed, except for Prof. McGlone conceding fat has higher nandrolone concentrations, among several other organs besides testicles.
Part of the reason for these exclusions might be a lack of agreement and consistency and possibly even awareness on the part of the WA/AIU and their "expert witnesses" of what Houlihan claimed, as Houlihan's claim seems to have morphed throughout the report, but notably not by Houlihan. We see in 8. that Houlihan told the AIU it was in the burrito. Although nothing suggests she ever reduced this original claim either explicitly or implicitly, in 40., we see the "Claimant" (WA) is under the impression that "the pork product that the Athlete allegedly ate is pork stomach". In 107., we see that Prof. McGlone thinks "the Athlete claims to have eaten pork’s stomach", while in 111., Prof. Ayotte focuses on "boar meat", arguing with two "boar meat" studies represented as "the literature". These revised and reduced claims in 40, 107, and 111 don't appear to be completely accurate.
It should go without saying that we cannot rule out the original claim of a burrito by only ruling out one or two selected ingredients.
While I appreciate that Ross Tucker has his own opinion, your handle is "facts are facts". Opinions, even from "independent scientists", are not facts.
Regarding Tygart, you must be aware that he has often criticized "the book's" revisions in 2015, as it treats athletes as intentional cheats, and can railroad innocent athletes to 4-year bans, when they have done nothing wrong. This casts doubt on whether he considers decisions made "by the book" to be the right outcomes, when he considers the book itself is wrong. And again, recall that a minority of the CAS Panel says the decisions were not all "by the book", so technically Tygart's opinion is not quite correct either.
Ayotte's own papers, it would be sufficient to eat as little as half an ounce (14 grams) of nandrolone rich offal, including fat in a greasy burrito. The concentrated nandrolone in offal could have easily been chopped up and cooked with the greasy pork meat, or ground up in chorizo. These possibilities were not addressed in testimony that was inexplicably limited to pork meat and stomach.
Because she didn't eat pig offal.
She didn't even eat pig.
She ate beef.
Any other dumb questions?
I didn't ask any questions. "Lloyd Flandis" says she needed to eat three burritos. It's clear he accepted for discussion that they were greasy intact pork burritos, and not dry beef burritos. Nothing says she actually ate beef.
Shelbo got sis canned. Shelbo broke up most of BTC. Shelbo took prize money away from clean athletes. Shelbo took appearance fees away from deserving athletes. Lance and Marion at least eventually came clean and told the truth. Regina didn't. Our sport doesn't need more dopers.
in a world where hassan is running a 3:53 1500 and a 2:13 marathon within 3-4 months of each other and not getting popped, kipyegon running 3:49, hull 3:50, that one kenyan running sub 29 on the roads, that other kenyan running a 2:09 marathon. In a world where the top runners slower training partners are getting popped but not the top dogs. Not gonna throw a fit about shelby coming back.
"our doped up guy beat your doped up guy" always has been always will be the reality of pro sports
I didn't ask any questions. "Lloyd Flandis" says she needed to eat three burritos. It's clear he accepted for discussion that they were greasy intact pork burritos, and not dry beef burritos. Nothing says she actually ate beef.
nope, you presumed i accepted for discussion that she ate pork. Not my intent. Also, "nandrolone-rich pork", that's a big presumption.
Maybe instead she should do a video where she makes amends, tells the truth, takes responsibility, pays back her appearance fees, makes whole the people she stole prize money from, etc.
I agree with you. If she doped, this is the only acceptable way forward. We should all be able to own up to our mistakes.
The weird thing about Shelby is that it would have been easier on her (and better) if she had just admitted it. Her ban would have been three years instead of four! She could have talked to the media about pressure, other cheaters, a fear of being the only one who isn't doping, etc. There is so much she could have said and owned her mistake. Most fans would have moved on by now.
But here's the weird thing, by being 1000% adamant that she didn't dope, makes me wonder if she truly thinks she didn't dope. Maybe, in reality, she didn't actively "do" anything and someone else was doping her or her supplements were tainted. She thinks she was clean and had no idea how the nandrolone got in her system.
That would explain why she has chosen the harder path of total resistance. Maybe?
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
I didn't ask any questions. "Lloyd Flandis" says she needed to eat three burritos. It's clear he accepted for discussion that they were greasy intact pork burritos, and not dry beef burritos. Nothing says she actually ate beef.
nope, you presumed i accepted for discussion that she ate pork. Not my intent. Also, "nandrolone-rich pork", that's a big presumption.
So you meant three beef burritos all along? Recall we were discussing the quantity of burritos necessary to "eat enough to get the #s she did", e.g. 14 grams of offal in 3/4ths of a greasy burrito, versus 3 burritos -- but now it has turned into a discussion about beef versus pork.
Note that any presumption of endogenous nandrolone in pork is not mine, but comes from "the literature" and from the "expert witnesses" for WA/AIU telling us in which organs we can find the higher concentrations.
feels like the difference in production quality between FloTrack vs Track All Access is completely night and day.
camera work was much worse, making her run with a mic on was weird & if you're trying to promote your upcoming documentary on the athlete and seemingly garner some sympathy for her, then introducing her as "managed to push through and train even harder while she's been banned" when she's been banned for using performance enhancing substance (whether you believe it was intentional or not) is a pretty stupid comment because it will just draw more suspicions towards the athlete
I dont think they ever said but I'd be curious to know when this workout was filmed, bearing in mind how soon her 3000m opener is, because if it's very recent, that's not a good sign
Was good to hear her talk about her expectations of how she'll be received when she returns to competing though (eg. doesnt know what to expect but has been working with a sports psych anyway to focus more on how she feels about the event/performance/day).
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.