LRC “interviews” Shelby about burrito defense and doping

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

wejo wrote:

Shelby had a banned substance and was not able to prove how it got in her system so she served a 4 year drug ban. Meanwhile her coach and teammates nearly universally all rallied behind her and said they didn't think she was doping.

Of course I'm open to the possibility she was, but the cases aren't similar.

I agree fundamentally the cases aren't similar - but this is dependent on how much you want to unpackage them right?

Asbel Kiprops and Regina Jacobs cases also aren't superficially similar but again if you strip everything away it get's down to one thing - intent to knowingly break rules and cheat the system.

I think the one problem here with respect to your comment here that a lot of people are (rightly) disappointed/upset with is not the fact that she "had a banned substance and was not able to prove how it got in her system" (because that's 100% correct and nobody is arguing with that) - it's how the "story" and the interpretation of what that conceptually represents that seems to get lost in translation.

From the moment the salient details about the burrito story began to line up, it was clear to me that this was a bogus story and honestly it should have to most rational people. That wouldn't be unreasonable because as we know now, it appears that even Shelby herself finds it scarcely believable. We really aren't left with many other avenues then are we, other than some kind of supplement or "vitamin" which of course is now what Shelby is trying to direct us (and herself?) towards.

The big question I ask myself then is this - if it did turn out to be "contaminated vitamins", the burrito story and the vehement defense that came with it, really becomes troubling because what did you have to hide with the "vitamins"? Like this wasn't even mentioned from her and her defense and it just seems to be a far easier path to take doesn't it? Like instead of trying to line up 8 different possibilities surrounding the damn burrito - each of them with varying degrees of extremely low feasibility/plausibility, like why not have the "vitamins" also on the table? Like they are right there - they had to be. Okay so even assuming the last one you took was the day before the test and the bottle ended up in Portlands recycling network, you can't remember the name of your vitamin, where you got it from or even what the bottle looked like so that could be looked into?

Because now to me, and I'm going to guess thousands of others, it seems like you are taking this path of most resistance to deliberately be so ambiguous you could weasel out of it. If you own your carelessness with the vitamins, you would have got 2 years and maybe even less because we have seen cases like these where bans are reduced but more importantly, 99% of track and field fans are like "man that was stupid but okay, sh-t happens", and the question of if she was deliberately trying to cheat the system doesn't even reach air traffic control for takeoff. That's not what happened and the only rational reason why you wouldn't even have this out there (vitamins) is because there was something to hide with said "vitamins". I get that we all want to be hyper vigilant and analyze everything to n'th degree and apply the pythagorean theory and quantum physics to everything these days, but sometimes the reality is actually quite straight forward. Even the "I don't even know what the vitamins were anymore" has morphed into "oh just some gummies from Safeway". Come on guys. Come on.

And it is THIS that is missing from the "she was not able to prove how it got in her system, 4 years, case closed" journalistic take and I believe this is what people want to hear Shelby answer and if it's just a "IDK" + shoulder shrug, then that's really not good enough. I do think there could be a lot more pressure applied to this aspect of the story - but that's just my opinion. Maybe I should interview her ;)

rekrunner wrote:

Hind's Hall wrote:

ok I listened. These are my thoughts.

1. The Brojos are super apologetic throughout the interview, which is frustrating that they can't even be neutral. They DO give her passes here and there and they DON'T ask follow up questions that I think are needed. Like, Robert being a coach at Cornell and a pro coach are very different. I wouldn't expect a college coach to know what nandrolone is but I would if it is a pro coach...

2. They (however begrudgingly) DO ask all the questions I've been hoping they would. They ask her about the numbers lining up with the nandrolone precursor, about the Gabriela debacle, about how she's supporting herself financially, about it being twice the legal limit, they did ask her about how it was strange Jerry and Shelby didn't know what nandrolone was, so credit for that. But they didn't push her when she provided truly less than satisfactory answers.

3. This interview, however apologetic affirms my believe that Shelby cheated, probably with a vitamin or a shady supplement she was taking that she didn't realize could get her popped. I

As previous posters pointed out, Shelby's answers to the questions were way less than satisfactory. She stumbled through a lot of it. Much of it was "IDK IDK IDK!" How can you claim the system was unjust towards you when you openly acknowledge that there was nandrolone in your system, there's a plausible explanation based on your numbers how it got there? Not having (or frankly, refusing to provide) an explanation of your own is on you. The system did it's job.

She claimed she only took some gummy vitamins from Safeway. Bull. The numbers are too perfect, and I don't believe her.

She had no response to how the system can even prove that someone is doping though she's insisted for years that it should have to do that.

She blamed Gabriela for not being more communicative with HER even though she was crashing THEIR practices all the time.

What answer do you expect if she really doesn't know? Should she start reading forums and get the answers from a bunch of anonymous know-it-alls?

Shelby had a plausible, scientifically proven explanation that can explain the numbers, but was not able to prove it was the most likely explanation in her case. Note that no one else proved any alternative was more likely, so the current status is that if Shelby doesn't know, then no one knows.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

I agree fundamentally the cases aren't similar - but this is dependent on how much you want to unpackage them right?

Asbel Kiprops and Regina Jacobs cases also aren't superficially similar but again if you strip everything away it get's down to one thing - intent to knowingly break rules and cheat the system.

I think the one problem here with respect to your comment here that a lot of people are (rightly) disappointed/upset with is not the fact that she "had a banned substance and was not able to prove how it got in her system" (because that's 100% correct and nobody is arguing with that) - it's how the "story" and the interpretation of what that conceptually represents that seems to get lost in translation.

From the moment the salient details about the burrito story began to line up, it was clear to me that this was a bogus story and honestly it should have to most rational people. That wouldn't be unreasonable because as we know now, it appears that even Shelby herself finds it scarcely believable. We really aren't left with many other avenues then are we, other than some kind of supplement or "vitamin" which of course is now what Shelby is trying to direct us (and herself?) towards.

The big question I ask myself then is this - if it did turn out to be "contaminated vitamins", the burrito story and the vehement defense that came with it, really becomes troubling because what did you have to hide with the "vitamins"? Like this wasn't even mentioned from her and her defense and it just seems to be a far easier path to take doesn't it? Like instead of trying to line up 8 different possibilities surrounding the damn burrito - each of them with varying degrees of extremely low feasibility/plausibility, like why not have the "vitamins" also on the table? Like they are right there - they had to be. Okay so even assuming the last one you took was the day before the test and the bottle ended up in Portlands recycling network, you can't remember the name of your vitamin, where you got it from or even what the bottle looked like so that could be looked into?

Because now to me, and I'm going to guess thousands of others, it seems like you are taking this path of most resistance to deliberately be so ambiguous you could weasel out of it. If you own your carelessness with the vitamins, you would have got 2 years and maybe even less because we have seen cases like these where bans are reduced but more importantly, 99% of track and field fans are like "man that was stupid but okay, sh-t happens", and the question of if she was deliberately trying to cheat the system doesn't even reach air traffic control for takeoff. That's not what happened and the only rational reason why you wouldn't even have this out there (vitamins) is because there was something to hide with said "vitamins". I get that we all want to be hyper vigilant and analyze everything to n'th degree and apply the pythagorean theory and quantum physics to everything these days, but sometimes the reality is actually quite straight forward. Even the "I don't even know what the vitamins were anymore" has morphed into "oh just some gummies from Safeway". Come on guys. Come on.

And it is THIS that is missing from the "she was not able to prove how it got in her system, 4 years, case closed" journalistic take and I believe this is what people want to hear Shelby answer and if it's just a "IDK" + shoulder shrug, then that's really not good enough. I do think there could be a lot more pressure applied to this aspect of the story - but that's just my opinion. Maybe I should interview her ;)

Jonathan Gault wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Simple question JG, you really think that "tainted meat" excuse was better than just owning up to carelessness with "vitamins" (supplements)? I don't - but everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Well I think the difference here is you seem convinced that she was taking some supplement that she hasn't told us about that may have been in the gray area (or at least was sufficiently sketchy to have triggered a positive test, even if she may have thought it was legal). Whereas I'm taking her at her word that she was only taking calcium, vitamin D, a multivitamin, and a B-complex vitamin, and all of those seem pretty normal.

Of course I could be wrong. And if she was taking some sort of supplement that she believed to be legal or in the gray area and tested positive as a result, then yes, I agree with you: she should have come out and said that from the beginning and would have had a chance at having a year or two knocked off of her suspension.

But if she truly was only taking the vitamins she mentioned in our interview, then I think the burrito explanation was still the right argument to make at the time in 2021. At least with that one, pork offal was on the menu of the place where she ordered her burrito -- a loose, tangential connection to nandrolone, but better than the alternative (a bunch of vitamins with no sign of contamination).

Jonathan Gault wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Simple question JG, you really think that "tainted meat" excuse was better than just owning up to carelessness with "vitamins" (supplements)? I don't - but everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Well I think the difference here is you seem convinced that she was taking some supplement that she hasn't told us about that may have been in the gray area (or at least was sufficiently sketchy to have triggered a positive test, even if she may have thought it was legal). Whereas I'm taking her at her word that she was only taking calcium, vitamin D, a multivitamin, and a B-complex vitamin, and all of those seem pretty normal.

Of course I could be wrong. And if she was taking some sort of supplement that she believed to be legal or in the gray area and tested positive as a result, then yes, I agree with you: she should have come out and said that from the beginning and would have had a chance at having a year or two knocked off of her suspension.

But if she truly was only taking the vitamins she mentioned in our interview, then I think the burrito explanation was still the right argument to make at the time in 2021. At least with that one, pork offal was on the menu of the place where she ordered her burrito -- a loose, tangential connection to nandrolone, but better than the alternative (a bunch of vitamins with no sign of contamination).

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There are thousands of tests conducted globally each year in sports. 1% result in positives - which has to be hundreds - even more - against the total number of athletes tested. You could count on the fingers of one hand the number who are exonerated in a year. So it is a mere fraction of those found guilty. Add to that, CAS said Houlihan's attempted defence produced a cascading series of improbabilities. She isn't the example of injustice you are looking for.

You failed to answer. What is your source for 99%?

Thousands of tests conducted globally each year in sports! Wow! Thousands! That changes everything! Thousands?!? Wait, how many thousands? And just how many fingers do you have on one hand?

No need for emotional appeals or resorting to the fabrication of numbers when WADA makes these things public every year. For the year 2019 (the last published WADA ADRV report not impacted by COVID)", 278,047 samples were tested, resulting in 2,701 positives. Out of these:

- 1,537 samples (57%) were confirmed as ADRVs (sanctions);
- 297 samples (11%) were dismissed because of a valid medical reason;
- 274 samples (10%) were categorized as “no case to answer” (i.e. case closed for a valid reason other than medical reasons);
- 49 samples (2%) resulted in “no sanction” because the Athlete was exonerated;
- 544 samples (20%) were still pending.

Are you saying you have 49 fingers on one hand? Can we find you in the Guinness Book of World Records? What about these other 274 + 297 cases that were dismissed and closed, not resulting in an ADRV? How many hands and feet do you have? Are you a millipede?

I think the mere fraction you are looking for is 6/10, or 60%, assuming these ADRVs are correct.

Regarding Houlihan, there is no way to know where Houlihan should be among these figures, without first conducting a fact-finding exercise.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The usual obfuscatory waffle. It is WADA that says about 1% of tests are positives. Of the sanctions incurred you give figures for those dismissed on the grounds of 1) a "valid medical reason" - that isn't Houlihan - 2) "no case to answer" - definitely not Houlihan - 3) "exoneration" - definitely not Houlihan, with her weak defence - and 4) "cases pending" - not Houlihan, the convicted doper. So she doesn't fall within ANY of the categories of cases dismissed after testing positive. There is further NO category that she might fall within that would result in exoneration, except in your weak arguments, and which is why she remains a convicted doper. There are likely condemned convicts on death row more innocent than she is.

You still failed to answer your source for 99%.

As usual, after just two iterations, you forgot what you said: "99% of athletes who test positive are guilty". WADA didn't say that, you did. You weren't talking about the 99% which WADA reports are not positive, but 99% of the 1% which are positive. WADA regularly reports ~60% of "positive" tests are considered rule violations.

You may be right that Houlihan is not part of any of these figures, as the CAS did not find that the AIU met their burden of establishing the test result was an ADRV. The CAS simply presumed the AIU met their burden.

Regarding Houlihan, there is no way to know based on facts, without first conducting a fact-finding exercise. She was convicted on a set of presumptions lacking facts.