sanootage wrote:
shaka zulu wrote:
So what. She's out. Deal with it bro finally and move on.
Intent is a central element of jurisprudence.
Does the prosecution have to show intent in this case?
Was she screwed by a corrupt system?
sanootage wrote:
shaka zulu wrote:
So what. She's out. Deal with it bro finally and move on.
Intent is a central element of jurisprudence.
Does the prosecution have to show intent in this case?
Was she screwed by a corrupt system?
sanootage wrote:
thoughts and prayers wrote:
a doper got removed from the sport for 4 years.
I am satisfied.
No intent
strict liability
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
The interesting thing is Houlihan and team early on seem to have latched onto the burrito thing as the only thing that had any chance in court. They went down the supplement route and came up empty with the things they tested coming up clean. They never brought it up again, even though it's way more believable than the burrito story. Maybe once the next appeal fails, Shelby will redirect her excuse from the burrito to open to the possibility that she took a tainted supplement that she discarded too early. Impossible to prove clearly, but way more plausible.
I think this is an important point, mainly because it's about Houlihan's credibility. She went for the burrito defense knowing it was BS but thinking it was her best chance. She lied intentionally in court. If she's willing to lie in court, what else would she do?
thoughts and prayers wrote:
sanootage wrote:
No intent
strict liability
Yes, one of the consequences of such.
High hopes wrote:
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
The interesting thing is Houlihan and team early on seem to have latched onto the burrito thing as the only thing that had any chance in court. They went down the supplement route and came up empty with the things they tested coming up clean. They never brought it up again, even though it's way more believable than the burrito story. Maybe once the next appeal fails, Shelby will redirect her excuse from the burrito to open to the possibility that she took a tainted supplement that she discarded too early. Impossible to prove clearly, but way more plausible.
I think this is an important point, mainly because it's about Houlihan's credibility. She went for the burrito defense knowing it was BS but thinking it was her best chance. She lied intentionally in court. If she's willing to lie in court, what else would she do?
Not a lie ; only the best suggestion .
The best suggestion given the AIU’s system I’d agree. I don’t think it hurts her credibility, it more just shows how desperate her side was to come up with any excuse they could.
High hopes wrote:
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
The interesting thing is Houlihan and team early on seem to have latched onto the burrito thing as the only thing that had any chance in court. They went down the supplement route and came up empty with the things they tested coming up clean. They never brought it up again, even though it's way more believable than the burrito story. Maybe once the next appeal fails, Shelby will redirect her excuse from the burrito to open to the possibility that she took a tainted supplement that she discarded too early. Impossible to prove clearly, but way more plausible.
I think this is an important point, mainly because it's about Houlihan's credibility. She went for the burrito defense knowing it was BS but thinking it was her best chance. She lied intentionally in court. If she's willing to lie in court, what else would she do?
I can't believe people actually thought the Bowerman outfit were clean! They're an appendage to NOP, they are well paid pros and most importantly you tell them apart from other runners at racers, they're significantly more muscular than everyone else. Just look at Marc Scott winning the Great North Run a few days ago, his muscles were bulging out of his singlet, something usually counterproductive for longer distances and a sign of androgen use. If it were East Germans, Russians, Moroccans or Chinese we'd all be labeling them cheats!
Sort of related. The USADA has a searchable database that shows how many times athletes have been tested throughout the year. It's not an exhaustive/entirely accurate representation of testing, because I believe the database only reports USDA administered tests the USDA decided to do, and not tests requested or directly administered by other entities.
It is interesting though. I ran a search for 2020, and from a rough estimation, Houlihan was in/near the top 5 of most tested athletes (out of 400). Looking at the other most-oft tested athletes though, I can't identify any obvious trend to explain why USADA tests some athletes far more than others; it seems kind of random, and it's weird to see that a vocal champion of clean sport (Emma Coburn) was tested more times than Houlihan.
Does anyone know if/what USADA's criteria is that leads them to seemingly target some athletes? Surely they have protocols, because if not, you could probably make an argument for discrimination and bias, or the potential for it.
Wasn’t there some talk of him testing positive.
Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Intent is a central element of jurisprudence.
Does the prosecution have to show intent in this case?
Was she screwed by a corrupt system?
1.No
2.Not sure, system is such that we will never know.
idkthisorthathuh wrote:
Sort of related. The USADA has a searchable database that shows how many times athletes have been tested throughout the year. It's not an exhaustive/entirely accurate representation of testing, because I believe the database only reports USDA administered tests the USDA decided to do, and not tests requested or directly administered by other entities.
It is interesting though. I ran a search for 2020, and from a rough estimation, Houlihan was in/near the top 5 of most tested athletes (out of 400). Looking at the other most-oft tested athletes though, I can't identify any obvious trend to explain why USADA tests some athletes far more than others; it seems kind of random, and it's weird to see that a vocal champion of clean sport (Emma Coburn) was tested more times than Houlihan.
Does anyone know if/what USADA's criteria is that leads them to seemingly target some athletes? Surely they have protocols, because if not, you could probably make an argument for discrimination and bias, or the potential for it.
I fully agree.
They test those “ at risk”” suspicious” etc . Then publish the list.
How do they get away with that?
How?
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
The best suggestion given the AIU’s system I’d agree. I don’t think it hurts her credibility, it more just shows how desperate her side was to come up with any excuse they could.
Given a ban and tainted for life you would be desperate.
Good points. USADA only vaguely said they do intelligence-based testing. Claiming to be clean likely won't help much. See also Kara's comments about being tested often.
Did you check 2021? Last time I did that, Jager and Centro were on top of that list.
Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:
subelite hobbyjogger wrote:
I think that microdosing nandrolone is the most likely possibility. As has been noted elsewhere in this thread, the threshold for a positive is not zero. Nandrolone is very effective at alleviating joint pain. This is a benefit that other anabolics don’t have. This could obviously be beneficial for a distance runner.
How do you microdose nandrolone, given that a normal dose is detectable for many weeks?
How do you microdose any substance that has an allowable limit? You microdose, and get tested by your doping Dr. to ensure that your levels are within the limit. It undoubtedly works very well most of the time. Who cares if it stays within your system for weeks, as long as it is not over the limit.
Microdosing is trickier with substances that have no threshold. One strategy is to microdose in such a way that it clears the system very quickly, ideally in less than 12 hours. A classic example is intravenous microdosing of EPO, one of Dr. Ferrari’s contributions to doping science.
Oh for god’s sake, talk about a silly take. Somehow Malcolm Gladwell knows that SH wouldn’t take steroids because so much was at stake? Maybe she took steroids because so much was at stake. Maybe she was a cheat all along and her luck ran out.
The story concocted by her team was clearly the product of a fevered imagination, so fevered in fact that it strains the bounds of credulity. What’s the alternative to her story that leaves her innocent?
1) She was spiked a la Ben Johnson who provided the defense ‘that’s not the steroid I was actually on.’
2) She has the same dentist as Dieter Baumann - ooopsie!
3) She has Tyler Hamilton’s evil twin inside of her. He’s the one that doped, not her.
4) The KGB snuck in both labs and spiked the samples with help from Fancy Bear as revenge for not having their flag in Tokyo.
In any event, here we are tripping over our Johnsons trying to find a way out for her. C’mon brojos, you’re better than this. You have an opportunity to be a voice against doping and use your influence to better the sport. When you entertain wild speculation and self-indulgent clowns like Gladwell, you greatly diminish your influence in the sport.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
Yes, every time someone gets popped for Nandrolone it's always the same mental gymnastics around why anyone would dope with it. I guess I'm disappointed Epstein, Gault, the Brojos and Gladwell fall into the trap.
+1
This sums up it up in a nutshell. People need to stop trying to use this sense of human rational as a defense. We are flawed and illogical in so many ways(regardless of what classical economic theory says). We have seen people self sabotage countless times. An it's equally illogical to use the defense of that she wouldn't even use the super spikes (there may be reasons for it, like they didn't work well for her, etc), but in this day and age it is not rational to not use the super spikes. There was a banned substance found in her samples, and all of the handwringing over CAS/WADA/(other acronyms) only makes sense if you can get past her reason why the substance was there, the Improbable Pig Event.
casual obsever wrote:
Good points. USADA only vaguely said they do intelligence-based testing. Claiming to be clean likely won't help much. See also Kara's comments about being tested often.
Did you check 2021? Last time I did that, Jager and Centro were on top of that list.
I did and noticed Centro. I'm so curious about this now. Here's the criteria for targeted testing per ISTI guidelines (which USADA and WADA follow):
'Using as much information as possible to determine which athlete should be tested when, is crucial to an effective testing program. Testing should be as targeted as possible, and when determining which athletes need to be tested when, you should consider the following information (based on ISTI Article 4.5.3):
> an athlete’s test history, including whether they have any prior anti-doping rule violations, or any abnormal biological parameters
> an athlete’s sport performance history, including any unusual performance patterns, or a history of high performance without having been regularly tested (you should establish a means to track athletes’ sport performance and to highlight anything of interest, such as outstanding performances by junior athletes about to enter elite level);
> repeated failure to comply with whereabouts requirements or suspicious whereabouts filing patterns
> moving to or training in a remote location (e.g., for a NADO this could mean either domestically or abroad);
> withdrawal or absence from expected competition;
> association with a third party (such as a team-mate, coach, doctor, or other athlete support personnel) with a history of involvement in doping;
> injury (since frequent testing often isn’t conducted on injured athletes, this period may be abused for doping, especially if the athlete has incentives to speed up their recovery);
> age/stage of career (e.g., move from junior to senior level, nearing end of contract, approaching retirement);
> reliable information from a third party, or intelligence gathered or shared with the ADO.
I'm not a Houlihan apologist or defender of any doper, but this criteria is kind of unsettling. I feel like you could take nearly any athlete and check at least one of those boxes. The last one leaves gives anti-doping agencies way too much leeway and discretion to 'target test' whoever they want IMO.
For Centro, he could meet a number of these criterion but it's probably the past romantic relationship with Houlihan that's put him under the microscope, which, I guess that's fair enough per the guidelines, but that seems so invasive.
For a running message board so quick to anger and show outrage over non-running, perceived government overreach, I'm surprised more people aren't disturbed by this.
gumpyrunner wrote:
Houlihan, by way of this testimony, didn't always ensure that she was self-disciplined. She states she consumed a greasy burrito in an Olympic build-up.
Two things spring to mind:
1) A self-disciplined person, especially in an Olympic year, would have watched what they ate. In fact, Flanagan's cookbook was part Houlihan's guide to healthier living.
2) According to the testimony provided, Houlihan did not discontinue eating the extra greasy burrito until it was nearly 3/4 consumed. Knowing the health risks that come with eating greasy foods (including immune responses), one would question whether Houlihan demonstrated self-discipline pertaining to her body and what went in it.
A third point also comes to mind:
As 'disciplined' and capable as Houlihan was at achieving astonishing acts, those acts did not come by accident. Houlihan would have had to have worked for those results and been willing to do what her coach challenged her to do on the track.
3) That disciplined person who put her head down and gutted through intense workouts had no single, solitary thought to bag the burrito and/or get it analysed. She apparently just gave in and gave up. That fighter? Capable of astonishing acts?
Are you serious? Did you also know she had cheesecake for lunch? It was the offseason. You're mad that she didn't have a burrito analyzed on the spot because it was greasy? Please.
Someone being disciplined on the track has little to do with what the eat. THe reality is if you are training like an animal, you can eat a lot of crap or as it was famously once said, by Quentin Cassidy "If the furnace is hot enough, it will burn anything."
Well, most of those points, if not all of them, sound reasonable. But yes, it does give a lot of power to potentially biased or corrupt NADOs.
The alternative would be to test everyone the same way. Depending on the NADO, that might be better or worse....
Maybe she was taking another banned substance that had nandralone in it and they did not know it. Or something was "spiked" with it.