Grant Fisher Is universally beloved on these boards while Shelby Houlihan might be the most intensely despised person on Letsrun.
So LRC faithful answer me this, do you believe:
a) Houlihan acted independently to knowingly take drugs while BTC coaches/athletes were completely out of the dark. b) Nandrolone accidently got into Houlihan’s system and no one on the team was doping. c) The coaches were involved but only gave drugs to Houlihan and no other athletes on the team d) Everyone on the team was in on it, took drugs but only Houlihan tested positive. e) Some other scenario (please explain)
If you don’t believe option a or b, how do you reconcile that with your opinion of Fisher?
B
I’m a former Jerry Schumacher coached athlete. Jerry would never dope an athlete and Shelby was one of Jerry’s favorite athletes he ever coached. If there was any hint of her doping he would have had nothing to do with her. No one knows how the nandrolone got into her system.
It is the fault of Alberto Salazar that people don’t believe Shelby through and through. If he had not ruined the integrity of American distance running, people would not be so skeptical of someone like Shelby or even of Jerry.
If the test were handled by USADA, there never would have been a ban and it is possible we would never heard about it. WADA has political reasons they classified the test as a positive test, rather than an atypical finding. WADA is currently a political body, not an anti-doping body.
This is the truth. I’m sorry that people refuse to accept it and live in their fantasy delusions that Shelby is a doper.
I don't know anything about PEDs, which drug does what, how they're taken, etc. Way back when the story initially broke, I heard a few of her defenders claim that Nandrolone is not a useful drug for distance runners. For those who know more about this stuff - is that true?
Everything about her story felt dubious at best to me, except for that part. I don't know why a pro athlete would take an illegal drug with little to no benefit. It makes no sense, and makes her story much more believable.
Rekrunner likes to hijack Shelby threads to turn them to nonsense.
But what's good about this thread is that most of the pertinent information is on the first page and people have already read the first page. So they failed here.
Agreed LOL!!!!! I find rekrunner's post really nauseating for some reason because he is so clearly actively and intentionally shy of clean sport!!!!!! Whenever he has a chance, like a form of restlessness and juvenile angst he seems to vent an exoneration treatise one after another for all dopers and doping!!!! I don't read his posts as insightful, I rather read them as someone seeking ventilation as from a vent!!!
I don't know anything about PEDs, which drug does what, how they're taken, etc. Way back when the story initially broke, I heard a few of her defenders claim that Nandrolone is not a useful drug for distance runners. For those who know more about this stuff - is that true?
Everything about her story felt dubious at best to me, except for that part. I don't know why a pro athlete would take an illegal drug with little to no benefit. It makes no sense, and makes her story much more believable.
I said this back when it broke and I'll repeat it. Most steroids' key value is that they hasten recovery from exercise, injury, etc. In nandrolone's case it does build extra muscle mass. Even if you don't want to increase muscle mass, increasing the power and strength of the muscle you do have would be valuable to most distance runners.
Yeah man, all the personnel administration at BTC is also the ones at NOP. They are working for their employers at NIKE!!!!!
I don't know how rekrunner find Shelby not guilty of doping????????? Oh I know why it's because his job on LRC is to exonerate all dopers and doping with every reasoning trick in the trick book!!!!!
Did you guys read rekrunner's previous treatise on Shelby yet????? I did and I nearly threw up over my blouse!!!!!!! It was the most deceptive piece I ever read.
Can you point to any statement that is objectively incorrect? I would be more than happy to correct any self-deception on my part.
It helps to understand the process. WADA permits presuming athletes intentionally dope. I do not make any such presumptions, preferring to err on the side of innocent until proven guilty, and then make my own independent assessment of all the available objective facts, data, and evidence. It is not possible to remove the presumption of intent, and still arrive at an intentional finding based on the case before the CAS.
When you know the facts of this case, you will also know that the CAS Panel was split (2-1) about whether the positive test was correctly treated as an AAF, or whether that determination deviated from the WADA guidelines. My reading of the WADA Lab guidelines leads me to side with that minority panelist, which would render the question of the source of the nandrolone moot.
Look Mr PD, I'm not interested in objective correctness laced with subjectively ill-intentioned purpose alright????? So what if you are strictly objectively correct when I have told you that you have done so in an imbalanced manner to the extent that it seems affected??????
The reason why WADA presumes intention to dope is because objective data had previously shown that it could be up to 1 in 2 athletes who got away with doping in their lifetime and entire careers and never got caught. The prevalence and ubiquity informs the subjective presumption of intention to dope!!!!!!!
Just as the prevalence and ubiquity of sexually sinful behavior between Tinder date partners informs the subjective presumption of intention to commit sexual sin whenever Tinder date partners meet up, you feeling me sir??????
Subjectivity is the higher bar of adjudication!!!!
I’m a former Jerry Schumacher coached athlete. Jerry would never dope an athlete and Shelby was one of Jerry’s favorite athletes he ever coached. If there was any hint of her doping he would have had nothing to do with her. No one knows how the nandrolone got into her
This is Jerry Schumacher who ‘never heard of nandrolone’.
Right.
Your confidence that USADA would have covered up SH’s positive test does not inspire confidence that US athletes are clean.
Thank you sir for your support. I'm glad to have you and my 2 darlings Armstrong and Coevett on my side to fight human deception and corruption in sport!!!!!!
And yes, rekrunner specializes in exonerating doping and dopers with grit and resilience and against all odds LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rekrunner is mentally tough for evil and immorality. His favorite terms are 'strict liability' and 'presumed intention/knowledge'!!!!!!!!!
He is the 'womanizer' or 'sex Cassanova' equivalent of doping in sport!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dude has balls to protect the hallowed institution of doping!!!!
I don't know where you come up with this nonsense.
I might have said my favorite terms are "scientific method" and "objective facts, evidence, and data".
This means I disfavor conclusions based on presumptions, such as "presumed intent", lacking such objective facts, evidence, and data.
"Strict liability" will both burden and fault the athlete, even if the guilty party is the coach, manager, husband, the pharmaceutical industry, the supplement industry, or the meat industry. A lack of objective facts, evidence, and data will work against both guilty and innocent athletes alike.
Look Mr PD, you seem unconscious as always!!! You don't see the speck in your eye but keep finding the speck in another's????? Aren't you also doing presumption and 'presuming objective facts, evidence and data' as the superior evidence bar when I rather presume against your presumption and place subjective data as the more superior one instead????
At the end of the day, everything is a presumption, including objective data, evidence and facts duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
I’m a former Jerry Schumacher coached athlete. Jerry would never dope an athlete and Shelby was one of Jerry’s favorite athletes he ever coached. If there was any hint of her doping he would have had nothing to do with her. No one knows how the nandrolone got into her
This is Jerry Schumacher who ‘never heard of nandrolone’.
Right.
Your confidence that USADA would have covered up SH’s positive test does not inspire confidence that US athletes are clean.
CORRECT, when Jerry said he never heard of nandrolone, he was even more corrupt than rekrunner, even more lying than the latter!!!!!! How could an elite high performance coach who needs to know all aspects of antidoping law and diligently read all the legally binding drugs and substances not heard of nandrolone??????
If I had heard of nandrolone in my life, and I'm not a coach or elite athlete but an RF expert in another area of life instead, how could Jerry not heard of it before?????? Dude was a blatant liar and Fisher seems to have taken on Jerry's disastrous morals very well!!!
I apologize to all... I didn't realize summoning rekrunner would also summon Khamis, who is twice as bad in whatever direction his meds are taking him each day.
Goodness gracious, here we go again, our pro-doping champion rekrunner!!!!!!!! Shaking my head in disgust!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you show me which part you believe is "pro-doping"?
I'm only advocating for a superior method of drawing fact based conclusions.
I'm also only advocating for a superior method of drawing moral, spiritual and fact based conclusions all 3 in one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm 3-in-1 and what are you Mr PD????????
Your fact based only conclusion is highly flawed thus sympathetic to pro-doping!!!
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Look Mr PD, I'm not interested in objective correctness laced with subjectively ill-intentioned purpose alright????? So what if you are strictly objectively correct when I have told you that you have done so in an imbalanced manner to the extent that it seems affected??????
The reason why WADA presumes intention to dope is because objective data had previously shown that it could be up to 1 in 2 athletes who got away with doping in their lifetime and entire careers and never got caught. The prevalence and ubiquity informs the subjective presumption of intention to dope!!!!!!!
Just as the prevalence and ubiquity of sexually sinful behavior between Tinder date partners informs the subjective presumption of intention to commit sexual sin whenever Tinder date partners meet up, you feeling me sir??????
Subjectivity is the higher bar of adjudication!!!!
I'll take your concession that it is your subjectively superior conclusion that my entire post was strictly objectively correct, despite you baselessly calling it deceptive.
Your next point is wrong on at least two counts: 1) WADA changed from the ADAs/ADOs burdened with proving "aggravating circumstances" to the athlete burdened with disproving"presumed intent" because it was too hard to prove "aggravating circumstances" (the same way it is too hard to prove non-intent"), and 2) "presuming intent" speaks only to the length of sanctions (4 years versus 2 years), and does not reduce the number of "athletes who got away with doping in their lifetime and entire careers and never got caught." (ignoring the inaccuracies of "objective data had previously shown that it could be up to 1 in 2 athletes who ...").
I don't think we need to know your experience with Tinder.
I apologize to all... I didn't realize summoning rekrunner would also summon Khamis, who is twice as bad in whatever direction his meds are taking him each day.
I don't know anything about PEDs, which drug does what, how they're taken, etc. Way back when the story initially broke, I heard a few of her defenders claim that Nandrolone is not a useful drug for distance runners. For those who know more about this stuff - is that true?
Everything about her story felt dubious at best to me, except for that part. I don't know why a pro athlete would take an illegal drug with little to no benefit. It makes no sense, and makes her story much more believable.
In this case, it is even worse. It is undisputed that the nandrolone was ingested. Nandrolone is most effective when injected, not ingested, as most of the ingested nandrolone is filtered out on "first pass", never making it into the bloodstream. One study confirmed that ingested steroids, including nandrolone, did not have any significant effects.
Can you show me which part you believe is "pro-doping"?
I'm only advocating for a superior method of drawing fact based conclusions.
I'm also only advocating for a superior method of drawing moral, spiritual and fact based conclusions all 3 in one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm 3-in-1 and what are you Mr PD????????
Your fact based only conclusion is highly flawed thus sympathetic to pro-doping!!!
So you cannot show me which part you believe is "pro-doping" either?
I find you 0 for 3: Your aggressivity is immoral, unspiritual, and not fact based.
Look Mr PD, you seem unconscious as always!!! You don't see the speck in your eye but keep finding the speck in another's????? Aren't you also doing presumption and 'presuming objective facts, evidence and data' as the superior evidence bar when I rather presume against your presumption and place subjective data as the more superior one instead????
At the end of the day, everything is a presumption, including objective data, evidence and facts duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One basic difference is I presume athletes are innocent until it is established otherwise with facts, data, and evidence.
I apologize to all... I didn't realize summoning rekrunner would also summon Khamis, who is twice as bad in whatever direction his meds are taking him each day.
LOL. Now the questions are: who is posting even more, who gets even more downvotes, and who will have the last word? Stay tuned (I'll come back next week).
I apologize to all... I didn't realize summoning rekrunner would also summon Khamis, who is twice as bad in whatever direction his meds are taking him each day.
I apologize to all... I didn't realize summoning rekrunner would also summon Khamis, who is twice as bad in whatever direction his meds are taking him each day.
I effing love Khamis
Dear LRC folks, I have screenshot this comment over here as proof that there are people on LRC who loves my posts and comments and are willing to learn from a natural health advocate, Robert Kennedy and Donald Trump advocate, and RF King!!!!!
Mr PD rekrunner, just in case you are looking for 'facts' and 'objective data' of how prevalent the love on LRC is for me, here you go alright!!!!
This post was edited 41 seconds after it was posted.
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.