I always felt she was guilty of something, likely using the burrito as a cover for a more likely contaminated substance that itself may have been in the grey zone.
Many people think she’s a nandro doper with intention. Asking out of ignorance, but what’s the response her main argument that a) her tests have shown it wasn’t chronic and b) it was ingested (not injected)?
And then, if it were ingested knowingly, she could have just missed the test once with no consequence. Which again I think points to a contaminated supplement she doesn’t want to reveal.
What is the best rebuttal to this? That it was in fact intentional and not an accident.
Yes, it's possible that she was taking another banned drug that she didn't test positive for, that accidentally contained nandrolone.
But she obviously couldn't use that as a defense. That's where the burrito story came in.
So is that what people who believe she intentionally doped generally think? I thought some believed she was intentionally doping with nandro. But not sure what they argue against her claims (laid out in previous post).
I knew this would inevitably make its way on here so I would like to say a few things.
1) You may disagree or not believe in Shelby, but I sincerely ask you to listen to this episode. You will benefit greatly from hearing Shelby’s vulnerability, heart, and openness in sharing her story. We could be here endlessly debating all the different facts of the case, evidence on both sides, and much more. But that’s not what we’re here to do. All we’re here to do is give Shelby an opportunity to share her heart, give her side of the story in full, and give her the opportunity to answer every misconception about the situation.
2) Shelby has never spoken publicly in a long-form manner since her ban. She speaks on many news things that aren't publically known and addresses all of the misconceptions that you all wrongly speculate on here all the time.
3) Please listen to this with an open mind and not your predisposed mindset. If you want to speak on the podcast AFTER you listen to it, that's fine, but don't assume to know what she said without listening to it. 4) Lastly, Shelby and I both deserve respect. Whether you agree with Shelby or not, these are very sensitive and life-altering subjects. I demand that you show the utmost respect in any comment sections about this episode whether you agree with her or not. Every human being has dignity and should be treated with such.
I hope you will all give Shelby a chance. If you would like more info you can go to
Let’s be clear. Respect is earned not demanded. You platforming a doper isn’t earning you any respect from fans. Her vulnerability??? Why on earth should we care about that when we didn’t for any other drug cheat and she disrespected the sport so horribly. What a stupid whiny post.
So is that what people who believe she intentionally doped generally think? I thought some believed she was intentionally doping with nandro. But not sure what they argue against her claims (laid out in previous post).
That was one aspect I found misleading. Google Ross Tucker, science of sport. He's a scientist who did an hour long breakdown on the Houlihan case. In it he says the AIU seem to think Shelby took an oral nandrolone precursor, not oral nandrolone, and as such even if she took it regularly would not show up in the exact hair test that Houlihan's team did. That's why the CAS was so quick to dismiss that submitted evidence.
Shelby either knows that's the argument; oral nandrolone precursor not straight up nandrolone, and chose to deliberately mislead people with this part of her interview, or she doesn't understand the argument against her fully. Either that or Ross Tucker is wrong but I'm going to believe the world renowned sports scientist over someone with a banned substance in their system.
Even if you toss that aside, she said it was very unlikely she would deliberately take oral nandrolone and happen to get caught the one time she was tested, and that she would be stupid not to move her window. Well tbh I find it more plausible that a jock could be dumb enough to calculate their window wrong (or be off in their caluclations because all they had was half a burrito and some cheesecake the day before) so they were still glowing come test window time than somehow there was an elaborate mix up with a beef burrito that was a pork burrito loaded with nandrolone due to a super rare supply chain error which also caused the isotope of the pork to be off as well.
Same bad luck that she got tested the next day applies to both situations. I'm too smart to break the rules like that isn't a great defense when you're constantly making stupid PR moves every few weeks alienating what supporters you had. Makes it easy to believe you could be that thick headed.
So is that what people who believe she intentionally doped generally think? I thought some believed she was intentionally doping with nandro. But not sure what they argue against her claims (laid out in previous post).
That was one aspect I found misleading. Google Ross Tucker, science of sport. He's a scientist who did an hour long breakdown on the Houlihan case. In it he says the AIU seem to think Shelby took an oral nandrolone precursor, not oral nandrolone, and as such even if she took it regularly would not show up in the exact hair test that Houlihan's team did. That's why the CAS was so quick to dismiss that submitted evidence.
Shelby either knows that's the argument; oral nandrolone precursor not straight up nandrolone, and chose to deliberately mislead people with this part of her interview, or she doesn't understand the argument against her fully. Either that or Ross Tucker is wrong but I'm going to believe the world renowned sports scientist over someone with a banned substance in their system.
Even if you toss that aside, she said it was very unlikely she would deliberately take oral nandrolone and happen to get caught the one time she was tested, and that she would be stupid not to move her window. Well tbh I find it more plausible that a jock could be dumb enough to calculate their window wrong (or be off in their caluclations because all they had was half a burrito and some cheesecake the day before) so they were still glowing come test window time than somehow there was an elaborate mix up with a beef burrito that was a pork burrito loaded with nandrolone due to a super rare supply chain error which also caused the isotope of the pork to be off as well.
Same bad luck that she got tested the next day applies to both situations. I'm too smart to break the rules like that isn't a great defense when you're constantly making stupid PR moves every few weeks alienating what supporters you had. Makes it easy to believe you could be that thick headed.
Thanks, that’s a helpful perspective. I forgot about the precursor hypothesis.
I also think if she were really 100% innocent and had no idea what happened, she’d be willing to do an interview where the interviewer wasn’t obviously biased and lobbing up softballs. No one is suddenly believing her who didn’t already.
The podcaster made this episode to help cast her in a positive light, and even if some of the criticism of the process has some validity, anyone with a brain will be suspicious of what isn’t being asked.
That’s the camp I fall into. I don’t know enough about doping/WADA to spot all the things being left out, but I don’t trust the integrity of the interviewer to try and reveal the truth when he makes it obvious that the purpose of the podcast is to portray her as innocent.
One of the main problems she has is that if she is innocent as she claims, her burrito explanation seems to have the same probabilities involved as the Drake equation (the probability calculation for finding alien life). With all of Nike and BTC resources, this is the story that they came up with? Or is it that she and BTC panicked and chanced upon this implausible scenario and once it came out, they had to stick with it? A horrible explanation for the test results looks worse than pleading ignorance. I thought I would be angry about this, but my primary feeling is sadness. She and Nike apparently seemed more clever they show. This is our best running group?
I think you’re focusing too heavily on the intent component. I submit, Ross Tucker makes the point that if someone cuts off a corner of a marathon “unintentionally” but then crosses the finish line first, is that person the winner because they didn’t intend to do that? As a professional athlete, Shelby has a responsibility to make sure that no illegal substances are ingested or injected by herself. Unfortunately she failed with that and now she is banned and she doesn’t seem to convey that she understood that responsibility us.
I think you’re focusing too heavily on the intent component. I submit, Ross Tucker makes the point that if someone cuts off a corner of a marathon “unintentionally” but then crosses the finish line first, is that person the winner because they didn’t intend to do that? As a professional athlete, Shelby has a responsibility to make sure that no illegal substances are ingested or injected by herself. Unfortunately she failed with that and now she is banned and she doesn’t seem to convey that she understood that responsibility us.
The last bit in bold. Rather than accept responsibility, it is the system that must be wrong and must he changed. Nevermind the damage removing strict liability even in low concentration would do to clean sport. She's taken very little ownership. In her Runnersworld interview today she said she would sometimes bump into BTC runners. Apparently she just bumped into them so many times athletes left the team.
Again, no ownership or responsibility taken. There seems to be zero contrition. Like if you don't want people to think you're a doper, stop doing your best Lance Armstrong impression.
Has anyone on her mentioned thatnterview Sarah Lorge Butler interviewed Shelby for Runner's World. It's excellent. Sarah asks the questions that need to be asked and Shelby answers honestly. I wish this is the tact they had taken at the initial press conference.
My highlights.
1) She admits they don't know she tested positive from the big burrito, that was just their best option to argue.
I don’t know with 100 percent certainty that that’s where it came from. The only thing I do know is that I didn’t intentionally ingest [nandrolone]. For us, looking at all of the facts of the case—we tested all my vitamins and stuff like that, and we were really going through everything I ingested, and we were looking at this food truck.....
Obviously it’s still not the most probable thing that’s going to happen by any means, but that’s not anything that we were ever arguing. This is what we felt like made the most sense. That’s the route we tried to prove. Honestly, I don’t know for sure where it came from. I’ve asked myself that question a million times.
I don’t know if someone gave me something I didn’t know about, which is scary. Maybe it was in a vitamin. I just don’t know. I think that’s kind of the worst part of it is not knowing, what if this happens again? What if it was someone around me and they’re still around me? What if it was a vitamin and I’m still taking it? That’s been a little unnerving. Yeah, the burrito thing, as ridiculous as it honestly sounds, it feels like it makes the most sense and those are things that kind of add up. We just don’t have any other leads I guess, if that makes sense.
2. She tells Sarah all of the supplements she takes.
I take a calcium gummy vitamin, I take a multivitamin gummy vitamin, a vitamin D gummy vitamin, and a B complex, and when I go to altitude, I take iron. That’s all of the supplements that I take.
Has anyone on her mentioned thatnterview Sarah Lorge Butler interviewed Shelby for Runner's World. It's excellent. Sarah asks the questions that need to be asked and Shelby answers honestly. I wish this is the tact they had taken at the initial press conference.
My highlights.
1) She admits they don't know she tested positive from the big burrito, that was just their best option to argue.
I don’t know with 100 percent certainty that that’s where it came from. The only thing I do know is that I didn’t intentionally ingest [nandrolone]. For us, looking at all of the facts of the case—we tested all my vitamins and stuff like that, and we were really going through everything I ingested, and we were looking at this food truck.....
Obviously it’s still not the most probable thing that’s going to happen by any means, but that’s not anything that we were ever arguing. This is what we felt like made the most sense. That’s the route we tried to prove. Honestly, I don’t know for sure where it came from. I’ve asked myself that question a million times.
I don’t know if someone gave me something I didn’t know about, which is scary. Maybe it was in a vitamin. I just don’t know. I think that’s kind of the worst part of it is not knowing, what if this happens again? What if it was someone around me and they’re still around me? What if it was a vitamin and I’m still taking it? That’s been a little unnerving. Yeah, the burrito thing, as ridiculous as it honestly sounds, it feels like it makes the most sense and those are things that kind of add up. We just don’t have any other leads I guess, if that makes sense.
2. She tells Sarah all of the supplements she takes.
I take a calcium gummy vitamin, I take a multivitamin gummy vitamin, a vitamin D gummy vitamin, and a B complex, and when I go to altitude, I take iron. That’s all of the supplements that I take.
Has anyone on her mentioned thatnterview Sarah Lorge Butler interviewed Shelby for Runner's World. It's excellent. Sarah asks the questions that need to be asked and Shelby answers honestly. I wish this is the tact they had taken at the initial press conference.
My highlights.
1) She admits they don't know she tested positive from the big burrito, that was just their best option to argue.
I don’t know with 100 percent certainty that that’s where it came from. The only thing I do know is that I didn’t intentionally ingest [nandrolone]. For us, looking at all of the facts of the case—we tested all my vitamins and stuff like that, and we were really going through everything I ingested, and we were looking at this food truck.....
Obviously it’s still not the most probable thing that’s going to happen by any means, but that’s not anything that we were ever arguing. This is what we felt like made the most sense. That’s the route we tried to prove. Honestly, I don’t know for sure where it came from. I’ve asked myself that question a million times.
I don’t know if someone gave me something I didn’t know about, which is scary. Maybe it was in a vitamin. I just don’t know. I think that’s kind of the worst part of it is not knowing, what if this happens again? What if it was someone around me and they’re still around me? What if it was a vitamin and I’m still taking it? That’s been a little unnerving. Yeah, the burrito thing, as ridiculous as it honestly sounds, it feels like it makes the most sense and those are things that kind of add up. We just don’t have any other leads I guess, if that makes sense.
2. She tells Sarah all of the supplements she takes.
I take a calcium gummy vitamin, I take a multivitamin gummy vitamin, a vitamin D gummy vitamin, and a B complex, and when I go to altitude, I take iron. That’s all of the supplements that I take.
Because the onus is on the athlete to prove unintentional consumption of the banned substance based on a balance of probabilities, Shelby and her team were forced to develop and defend a theory of the case from the start. They decided the burrito theory was their best explanation. What she’s admitting to now is that even she doesn’t really believe the burrito explanation. Is that somehow strengthening the argument that she did not ingest a banned substance intentionally? What are her other theories? The supplements? No, those sound like everyday vitamins. She was given “something” by someone? What exactly, when and by whom? The AIU and CAS need no theory of the case to justly apply the ban based on the current rules, but during these interviews Shelby has done nothing to disprove that the most plausible theory of the case was intentional consumption. She’s upset that the onus is on her rather than the AIU/CAS to prove intent, but we all know the rules were very purposefully written this way for good reason.
She’s upset that the onus is on her rather than the AIU/CAS to prove intent, but we all know the rules were very purposefully written this way for good reason.
That's the interview in a nutshell. She's mad about the rules. But since those are in fact the rules, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. (Or to run on for 3 more years.)
She can't even keep her story straight. One minute she says it can't be her vitamins because they tested all her vitamins. And then the next minute she TWICE says that it might be her vitamins.
Liars often find it difficult to keep their lies straight.
So she's still innocent. What a shame nothing she says was able to be used by the best legal representation she could get to persuade two courts of that fact. I think I'll go with the rules and the judicial system over a 16 year old's podcast.
The legal team devised the burrito scenario going into the appeal. Now the legal team has devised the “ I don’t know “ scenario now that the appeal is over . There is a specific strategy used going into the appeal. The “I don’t know” had a zero chance on appeal. This is why they did not say it at the beginning like Rojo wanted . It isn’t a bunch of kids in 6 grade making up a plan, this is the Nike corporate legal group.
The burrito story obviously came from the lawyer working backwards from a conclusion. He was the guy who got Lawson off using a tainted meat defense so he reasoned that he could argue this again. The lawyer, or someone on the team read this article:
For the first time in the field of steroid residues in humans, demonstration of 19-norandrosterone (19-NA: 3alpha-hydroxy-5alpha-estran-17-one) and 19-noretiocholanolone (19-NE: 3alpha-hydroxy-5beta-estran-17-one) excretion i...
Using this, they made Houlihan's facts fit the results of the article. Notice how everything is stated to line up - the nandrolone concentration, the time lapse when it is most likely to be found. The only things that didn't line up were that she would need to eat 300g of pig offal, and that she didn't actually order a pig offal burrito.
This is part of the reason why I have trouble believing Houlihan. Her, and BTC, have been dishonest from the start. They've tried to obfuscate rather than be clear. It's hard to feel sympathy when people have assumed that you're a mug who will believe anything that they tell you.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.
Fill out a review to be entered into a drawing to win a free pair of shoes.
