Where is Bad Wiggins?
He seems uniquely qualified to jump into this thread.
Where is Bad Wiggins?
He seems uniquely qualified to jump into this thread.
idkthisorthathuh wrote:
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.
Still profiling and I thought that was a bit of a no go area.
Then to publish the outcome of such profiling should be getting some lawyers wetting their lips.
“Here is the list of those we are suspicious of cheating”
Also target testing is not compliant with privacy requirements of the EHRA as all subject to the rules should be treated the same.
rojo wrote:
The more I think about Gladwell's piece, the more I think his title should not have a question mark at the end of it. He's making a statement, not asking a question. It should be "Why Was the Decision in Shelby Houlihan’s Doping Case So Unsatisfying" not "Why Was the Decision in Shelby Houlihan’s Doping Case So Unsatisfying?"
LRC note. This post was edited as it initially included a typo.
I am not exactly a fan of Gladwell, but rojo giving him writing advice is absolutely comical.
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.
Why were Jager and Centro on top of the list in 2021?
sanootage wrote:
Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:
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.
So we're never going to see a body of evidence against Shelby, just one test result?
Why is that? It seems a bit fishy.
Isn't that Gladwell's point?
I think what happened here is that she trusted someone to give her something and they gave her the wrong product and the wrong product showed up.
The reason for the "no explanation" from Shelby's group is that how do you explain you were doing something wrong already and were given the wrong product in the process? You can't say "I was expecting EPO or testosterone and they gave me nandrolone instead".
sanootage wrote:
thoughts and prayers wrote:
a doper got removed from the sport for 4 years.
I am satisfied.
No intent
Wrong. Always wrong. "Deemed intentional".
Luv2Run wrote:
Maybe she was taking another banned substance that had nandralone in it and they did not know it. Or something was "spiked" with it.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this.
Either what she had was "spiked" or had residual of nandralone already in it or someone gave her the wrong substance and she took it thinking it was something else. Either way, her lack of any explanation I think means that if she were to give an explanation it would mean that she'd have to admit to taking other banned substances and being around people who have it. She'd have to explain where she got it too which probably opens up a larger problem.
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.
You don't know anything about jurisprudence. Or doping decisions. She was deemed to have committed an intentional violation.
Armstronglivs wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Intent is a central element of jurisprudence.
You don't know anything about jurisprudence. Or doping decisions. She was deemed to have committed an intentional violation.
If you had read the rules and comments by wada on such you would never have given such a selective mis interpretation.
But you just won’t read anything that may confuse you.
Armstronglivs wrote:
sanootage wrote:
No intent
Wrong. Always wrong. "Deemed intentional".
But not in the way you misconstrued.
Why would Stromba never be said to be intentional?
Too subtle for you!
Armstronglivs wrote:
sanootage wrote:
No intent
Wrong. Always wrong. "Deemed intentional".
That would require a body of evidence not a single test slightly over the legal limit. That is Gladwell's point isn't it?
It's probably the Tattoos. Her and Sha'Carri too.
Tattoos were only made legal in Japan exactly one year ago today.
What if the Food Truck was owned by Alberto Salazar and he was using burritos spiked with PEDs to help Nike athletes who slipped a couple Gs into the truck's tip jar?
After all, what is a Food Truck but a perfect cover for a mobile doping lab?
Shelby and the other clients order the "Carne Asada *special* with a quick wink of the eye for their personalized orders. Only this one burrito had a little too much sauce and Shelby got popped.
Is this story satisfying enough for Malcolm Gladwell? Probably closer to the truth than the yarn about the pork offal.
rojo wrote:
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."
You'd mentioned the off-season. Shelby would NOT be training hard. There'd be no hot furnace. If anything, her diet of cheesecake and burritos could make her fat and slow before she saddled back up for indoors -- although, there is room for winter time allowing more focus on "eating up" than "eating down."
Not seeing where this poster mentions that they (he? she?) are angry about a burrito not being wrapped up and dissected in a lab. What I'm reading is that it would behove a world-class athlete to keep a sample of something that seemed suspiciously wrong in their mouth. Bag and freeze it before you get to a lab that can perform an analysis. It's human nature to be curious, especially if what Shelby ate had every potential of making her sick.
You see, I'm curious about why Shelby wasn't curious about the burrito before the burrito became problematic. Curiosity is the driving force behind everything we know. Shelby wasn't the least bit curious about the supposed greasy state of the burrito, despite the burrito eventually being too greasy to finish. She did not try to find answers to questions where she didn't know the answers yet. Obtaining those scientific answers, closer to the time she ate that burrito, would have potentially made her story more plausible.
Shelby's quoted a number of times on nutrition and recovery stating to the effect that she tries to keep her focus on eating pure foods that her body can use. Either Shelby is very forgetful of what she states or maybe is intentionally misleading people concerning her diet and her recovery.
Drug testing is a PR exercise. They really don't care about the athletes, it's all about image.
Sha'Carri didn't fit the image. Especially in Japan where women are supposed to be demure and subservient.
The anti-cannabis rule was introduced because the drug supposedly went against "the spirit of the sport".
A woman with tattoos in Japan is considered offensive. It's really not that much of a stretch to consider that the authorities f****d Sha'Carri and Shelby over to please the host country.
Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:
A woman with tattoos in Japan is considered offensive. It's really not that much of a stretch to consider that the authorities f****d Sha'Carri and Shelby over to please the host country.
Just when it seems like the conspiracies couldn’t get any wilder, two tattooed American women are “targeted” to be popped out of 11,600 Olympic Athletes. LOL.
forcerunner wrote:
Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:
A woman with tattoos in Japan is considered offensive. It's really not that much of a stretch to consider that the authorities f****d Sha'Carri and Shelby over to please the host country.
Just when it seems like the conspiracies couldn’t get any wilder, two tattooed American women are “targeted” to be popped out of 11,600 Olympic Athletes. LOL.
They could have had a quiet word with Sha'Carri couldn't they? But they didn't. Why not?
Lol. Gladwell isn’t a liberal. He came up in conservative think tanks and was a shill for tobacco companies.
Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Wrong. Always wrong. "Deemed intentional".
That would require a body of evidence not a single test slightly over the legal limit. That is Gladwell's point isn't it?
No, it doesn't. A confirmed test is a violation. When no legitimate reason can be provided for the infraction - such as proven food contamination - then the infraction is deemed intentional, and hence the penalty. This is beyond the reasoning powers of doping apologists. And Gladwell. How many test results are needed? 2,3, 4 - 5?