Shelby wasn't using super spikes because she's not a (intentional) cheater.
I really, really believe she didn't intentionally cheat and either had some kind of chemical introduced into her body outside of her control or had a weird analytical result.
her whole doping story just doesn't make sense. The compound she was popped for really doesn't make sense to dope with (it's easy to quantify, doesn't offer much help compared to other pharmaceuticals and stays in the body a long time). even her excuse for doping is something I believe because it's just such a stupid thing to claim.
Nandrolone has regularly been used by dopers and particularly Kenyan dopers.
Has anyone considered that she was, in fact, doping but that it wasn’t really helping her? No question she had/has talent, which shows now.
Her and Matt Centro were both in the sauce. This is why they broke up right after. Everyone knows on the inside. I’m surprised more don’t post about it
One thing that popped into my mind on the podcast that I can't square my head around is for those of you think she was doping intentionally, why would you do that and not use super shoes?
Super spikes are a much easier way to get a couple of seconds in a 1500.
Has anyone considered that she was, in fact, doping but that it wasn’t really helping her? No question she had/has talent, which shows now.
Her and Matt Centro were both in the sauce. This is why they broke up right after. Everyone knows on the inside. I’m surprised more don’t post about it
One thing that popped into my mind on the podcast that I can't square my head around is for those of you think she was doping intentionally, why would you do that and not use super shoes?
Super spikes are a much easier way to get a couple of seconds in a 1500.
Weldon- Since you and your brother seem painfully deficient at basic logic (you're not nearly as bad as he is, of course, but this post really makes me wonder), I'll try to help a little.
She's not eschewing super-spikes because she thinks they'd give her an unfair advantage. That would be completely stupid, since everyone else is wearing them.
Can you seriously not understand this?
I'll say it again, in the hope that it might start to sink in:
She's not eschewing super-spikes because she thinks they'd give her an unfair advantage.
She's eschewing super-spikes because she doesn't like them, for whatever reason. She obviously feels like they don't help her, or do her more harm than help, or whatever.
(And I think she's made statements to that effect a couple of times, so why are you ignoring them, or pretending they didn't happen?)
So (and here again we come back to the basic logic failure you guys so often exhibit), your idea that her eschewing of super-spikes logically indicates that she must not have willfully taken steroids is, umm, how shall I put this? Utterly idiotic.
If you wanna believe she didn't cheat, for whatever reason, that's up to you.
If you want to present a logical argument why anyone rational should believe she didn't cheat, however, you really need to do a LOT better than this.
I have never stood this analogous. One advantage is public and the other only she knows about, there is a clear delineation. Wearing one would publicly, in her mind, take away from accomplishments, while the other only she knows about and everyone else will think she's achieved any accomplishments with her own talent.
One thing that popped into my mind on the podcast that I can't square my head around is for those of you think she was doping intentionally, why would you do that and not use super shoes?
Super spikes are a much easier way to get a couple of seconds in a 1500.
One look at her physique,and her overall appearance told me she was on steroids,and its a fair bet she also took EPO. She looked like an obvious doper,and reminded me of the russians.
Shelby doped intentionally. I don't understand what super spikes have to do with it. Who cares. Why do you continue to think Shelby didn't do it intentionally?
She was sanctioned for 4-years the same as an intentional doper, but without more specific and concrete evidence, it's still premature to conclude she doped, or whether she doped intentionally, without presuming these things beforehand.
The CAS clearly explained the significant role of presumptions in their findings.
Your coverage of Shelby has been so disgustingly biased it’s insane. Even after Ross Tucker told you point blank he thought she cheated, you were begging him to come up with any explanation as to how she could be innocent.
Ross Tucker is a strong believer in the power of doping, and in the power of science to detect doping, and the power of science to prove its effects. He does sometimes balance these strong beliefs with caveats and limitations. He wrote two blog posts against lifetime bans precisely because the science is not reliable enough.
I have always seen letsrun's coverage as intellectual reflection that everyone should do -- challenging popular ideas and beliefs rather than blindly accepting them like sheeple because they are popular.
If the beliefs and ideas have merit, the intellectual challenges will result in exposing the supporting facts and evidence that confirm the ideas and beliefs, or disprove the alternatives. Challenging baseless ideas and beliefs exposes them as baseless when no supporting facts or evidence can be produced.
What happened with the debate about Dr Christiane Ayotte, director of the WADA-accredited doping control lab whose credibility was questioned during the Jarrion Lawson case? She was also expert witness in Shelby's case but now Ayotte's testimony is to be believed? Athletes deserve a better, more reliable process or they risk losing everything.
Nothing happened to further the debate or to bolster her credibility, and there were no negative repercussions for providing testimony about her lab's results in the Lawson case, which was contradicted by the eventual production of the labs results, that she later wrote she "believe(d) to be accurate and true". "Neutral experts" should be giving tribunals neutral facts known to be accurate and true, or expert opinions based on those facts, rather than mischaracterizing the results from her own lab based on her belief.
Given her dual roles, she should have respectfully recused herself in both Lawson's and Houlihan's case to avoid the perception of the obvious conflict of interest.
In the past few years, USADA has actively moved to pick battles against WADA and other NADOs, and has given its own athletes huge leeways and open doors for doping and coming up with absolutely unhinged excuses. And that's on top of NCAA sports as a whole being open season for both doping and huge financial investement.
Even without bringing the possibility of doping into this discussion, the NCAA has more financial power, and more athletes to throw at the problem of running fast times, than the rest of the world combined. Of course that's where you're going to see records falling faster, it actually has investement and depth of talent.
One thing that popped into my mind on the podcast that I can't square my head around is for those of you think she was doping intentionally, why would you do that and not use super shoes?
Super spikes are a much easier way to get a couple of seconds in a 1500.
A couple of seconds is debatable. I don’t believe that Webb could have run 3:51 with the super shoes, or El Geurrouj, 3:24. Could Shelby have run 3:53?
Your coverage of Shelby has been so disgustingly biased it’s insane. Even after Ross Tucker told you point blank he thought she cheated, you were begging him to come up with any explanation as to how she could be innocent.
Ross Tucker is a strong believer in the power of doping, and in the power of science to detect doping, and the power of science to prove its effects. He does sometimes balance these strong beliefs with caveats and limitations. He wrote two blog posts against lifetime bans precisely because the science is not reliable enough.
I have always seen letsrun's coverage as intellectual reflection that everyone should do -- challenging popular ideas and beliefs rather than blindly accepting them like sheeple because they are popular.
If the beliefs and ideas have merit, the intellectual challenges will result in exposing the supporting facts and evidence that confirm the ideas and beliefs, or disprove the alternatives. Challenging baseless ideas and beliefs exposes them as baseless when no supporting facts or evidence can be produced.
That’s great, but what challenging beliefs that have a strong set of facts to back them up? There could be some merit to that, but based off his tone and reporting history I don’t think that’s Wejo’s intention. WADA provided a 100+ page report (not that length necessarily makes them correct) detailing how unlikely Shelby’s excuse is based on how the pork supply chain works in the United States, the isotope marker of nandrolone found in her blood, and results of previous testing. They even admitted they are not perfect and that there was a 1/10,000 chance that she could be right. If you read the Ross Tucker interview, it comes off that they WANT Shelby to be innocent, not that they are asking serious questions to confirm that the science is correct.
More power to you if you think Letsrun is an intellectual reflection of the desire for the deeper truths of the universe. But I think you’re being purposely verbose to mask that you want them to be right. Your post just boils down to the same “question everything” argument pseudo-intellectuals use when they don’t like the facts they’re faced with.
Shelby doped intentionally. I don't understand what super spikes have to do with it. Who cares. Why do you continue to think Shelby didn't do it intentionally?
She was sanctioned for 4-years the same as an intentional doper, but without more specific and concrete evidence, it's still premature to conclude she doped, or whether she doped intentionally, without presuming these things beforehand.
The CAS clearly explained the significant role of presumptions in their findings.
We are all going to DIE. Don’t you get it? You and all your waffling, limpwristed “premature” nonsense, cannot you ever conclude anything? You will die in a state of not having ever concluded anything.
One thing that popped into my mind on the podcast that I can't square my head around is for those of you think she was doping intentionally, why would you do that and not use super shoes?
Super spikes are a much easier way to get a couple of seconds in a 1500.
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.
