There is no way an athlete with her body type can cut mass, lean out remaining muscle and maintain or amplify her aerobic and anaerobic profile without dabbling on the dark side.
Her 1500m PR has improved by over 9%. Simply too good to be true.
It does not make someone a troll because they question the validity of her performance. 3:57 put her in a different class of athlete; the class of athlete where no matter who you are you WILL be questioned. It comes with the territory. Any elite athlete who thinks a thread is "mean" because their performance is questioned has a severe lack of understanding of the sport. I would go so far as to say they have an inept manager as well if they think saying "i'm definitely clean, so hopefully that will put the rumors to rest" makes any sense.
Shelby, if you're reading this you've got to realize what you can do as an athlete is going to be very difficult to understand for 99.999% of us simply because we can't ever do what you've done. We don't have the tools physically or mentally to be world class. That doesn't mean we don't believe in you if we are questioning your performance. Speaking for myself, I wish you would break down some barriers and let us know what changed in your life that may have led to that breakthrough. Not in regards to training, but in your life outside of running. Are you sleeping more? Eating different? Relationship at a high point so life feels easy? There's always a reason people make big jumps in racing. Attributing it to better training is often an easy, but way too obvious explanation. What made the training better so that the racing could be better?
That is something I wish reporters would address different because it's not an attack on someone's personal character to question their performance. It's simply saying "hey, a LOT of people have cheated in the past and that rubs fans the wrong way. Could you tell us how this breakthrough happened so we can get behind you?"
1 pro who tries to stay off of LRC. Why is that??? She responded directly to the doping thread after she dropped her 3:57. Pretty great talking about pounding two beers when doping control paid a visit to her place.
Shelby and Trump are in a dead heat for most gossiped about LRC names. And both are almost two years past their last competition. ShaCarri tries but doesn't have the staying power.
i think she should have just stuck to EPO,and not also used steroids.sure,drug cocktails will turn an athlete into a beast,but they also turn them into mutants.
Nice, but absurd phantasies, Phantasy Star. All of them!
Lol yes, the truth finally did come out about this doper (although she did run under 14:30).
Fun thread...
Fun indeed. But did the truth come out?
The process that "convicted" her was not designed to find the truth, but to make convictions easier, by defining rule violations as possible without knowing use, and by permitting the anti-doping bodies to benefit from a set of presumptions. In Houlihan's case, the source was never established with enough certainty, and there was never any evidence or proof of intent.
Presumptions that cannot be rebutted are a poor substitute for the truth. But they are good enough under the WADA Code to railroad athletes to 4-year bans without having to determine the truth.
Lol yes, the truth finally did come out about this doper (although she did run under 14:30).
Fun thread...
Fun indeed. But did the truth come out?
The process that "convicted" her was not designed to find the truth, but to make convictions easier, by defining rule violations as possible without knowing use, and by permitting the anti-doping bodies to benefit from a set of presumptions. In Houlihan's case, the source was never established with enough certainty, and there was never any evidence or proof of intent.
Presumptions that cannot be rebutted are a poor substitute for the truth. But they are good enough under the WADA Code to railroad athletes to 4-year bans without having to determine the truth.
The source is irrelevant. The rules don't care. What is relevant is that the drug was in her system. She couldn't prove accidental contamination. No one would ever be convicted of a doping offence if the authorities had to prove where the drug came from or how it got into the athlete's system. But that would suit you.
Lol yes, the truth finally did come out about this doper (although she did run under 14:30).
Fun thread...
Fun indeed. But did the truth come out?
The process that "convicted" her was not designed to find the truth, but to make convictions easier, by defining rule violations as possible without knowing use, and by permitting the anti-doping bodies to benefit from a set of presumptions. In Houlihan's case, the source was never established with enough certainty, and there was never any evidence or proof of intent.
Presumptions that cannot be rebutted are a poor substitute for the truth. But they are good enough under the WADA Code to railroad athletes to 4-year bans without having to determine the truth.
The gun in my hand is smoking, there is a dead body with my bullet in it right there...
The source is irrelevant. The rules don't care. What is relevant is that the drug was in her system. She couldn't prove accidental contamination. No one would ever be convicted of a doping offence if the authorities had to prove where the drug came from or how it got into the athlete's system. But that would suit you.
Recall that unlike you, "casual obsever" wasn't talking about rules or proving offences, but he said that "the truth finally did come out", as if "the truth finally did come out". That is not completely wrong, as simply saying "the truth" without specification is rather vague, and some partial truths did "come out".
You are right that the rules don't care about many truths, such as establishing "intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part". That is made explicit in the Code.
You are also right that the rules make convictions of doping offences easier for anti-doping authorities, without requiring to prove the difficult parts that might distinguish intentional cheats from unfortunate athletes guilty of unknowing ingestion. Since both scenarios are considered offenses, those truths did not come out.
The source is irrelevant. The rules don't care. What is relevant is that the drug was in her system. She couldn't prove accidental contamination. No one would ever be convicted of a doping offence if the authorities had to prove where the drug came from or how it got into the athlete's system. But that would suit you.
Recall that unlike you, "casual obsever" wasn't talking about rules or proving offences, but he said that "the truth finally did come out", as if "the truth finally did come out". That is not completely wrong, as simply saying "the truth" without specification is rather vague, and some partial truths did "come out".
You are right that the rules don't care about many truths, such as establishing "intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part". That is made explicit in the Code.
You are also right that the rules make convictions of doping offences easier for anti-doping authorities, without requiring to prove the difficult parts that might distinguish intentional cheats from unfortunate athletes guilty of unknowing ingestion. Since both scenarios are considered offenses, those truths did not come out.
Blah Blah Blah......
What are the odds that an athlete eats something that has a one in a million chance of that particular food item having enough of an exact banned substance.....and she just happens to get tested? Laughable.
Here's the truth that DID come out - She's banned.
What are the odds that an athlete eats something that has a one in a million chance of that particular food item having enough of an exact banned substance.....and she just happens to get tested? Laughable.
Here's the truth that DID come out - She's banned.
Yes she was banned for rule violations that don't require the athlete knowing she ingested it.
Given 121,000,000 pigs slaughtered per year in the US, even a 1 in a million chance is just a question of time. When that time comes, the probability then becomes 100% for that unlucky athlete.
Given all the truths that have come out, and the concessions from the anti-doping experts, the odds increased signficantly during the pandemic due to supply chain issues and delays, e.g. shortages in corn leading to increased soy diets, shortages of butchers leading to older pigs, shortages in USDA inspectors during high demand, likely to avoid sniff testing during an airborne pandemic, leading to more intact pigs passing inspection. One truth that hasn't come out, potentially significant in Oregon, is the number of "medically castrated" pigs passing USDA inspection weeks after the validity of their last injection, due to vaccine supply issues.
I haven't yet seen the odds that an athlete knowingly ingests a particular drug item having enough of an exact banned substance.....and just happens to get tested. Laughable.
There is some common belief that the population odds would need to rise above 50% likelihood for a single athlete to probably be innocent. This incorporates several fallacies that few can see.
The gun in my hand is smoking, there is a dead body with my bullet in it right there...
This emotional analogy fails because here there is no smoking gun -- the weapon wasn't identified -- and in murder cases, accidental death is not presumed to be pre-meditated murder, unless you can prove it probably wasn't, without the benefit of anyone establishing the murder weapon.
The gun in my hand is smoking, there is a dead body with my bullet in it right there...
This emotional analogy fails because here there is no smoking gun -- the weapon wasn't identified -- and in murder cases, accidental death is not presumed to be pre-meditated murder, unless you can prove it probably wasn't, without the benefit of anyone establishing the murder weapon.
