New detailed info about Shelby/btc relationship

Some body shaming perhaps? According to some it was obsessive and toxic with Salazar.

According to some others, Schumacher can be too controlling perhaps?

From what I have heard, I admire his loyalty.

You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose. But you can't pick your friends' nose.

However if you think about it, you certainly can pick your friends' nose if they let you.

Doesn't matter.

That's naïve. You're still locked in that 70s mindset. It's morally reprehensible to mis-educate young people with these fantasies.

Take oxygen uptake for example. It's a myth that great distance runners have a very high oxygen uptake. Daniels was right about this 50 years ago. Why deny it? To satisfy your ego?

Was it SafeSport or another agency that found he digitally penetrated a female athlete? That is way more than nothing and should be enough to put him in jail. Digital penetration is rape, finger or other body part doesn't matter.

You're talking about a totally different topic. If chewing gum goes onto the banned list athletes need either to avoid chewing it or make sure they don't get caught if they do for no other reason than it's banned and they'll get suspended if they do. Whether chewing gum belongs on the banned list or whether the list should exist at all is a different discussion.

interesting that everyone believes everything GDS says while questioning everything Shelby says. Note that all of the events listed occurred while Shelby was still in the appeals process contesting her ban.

Also. Remember GDS posted in support of Shelby when the ban was announced. Went to a destination BTC wedding with Shelby and co after the ban. Recruited her little sister and close friend to the team after the ban had been announced. I suspect it only became an issue when GDS/her husband decided it was hurting their “brand”.

It’s really important that people who have been critical of her stick to the exact reasons why. Disgusting comments like this are never welcome.

No, this deserves a rebuttal.

We are believing everything GDS says because she has no reason to lie.

Shelby wasn't "still in the appeals process" as though the ban was provisional. She was Banned. Capital B, Banned during this time. The appeal was a Hail Mary that was expected to, and then did--fail.

GDS did not express support of Shelby's innocence though it's possible she expressed support of her as a person. If there was a personal post on her account, point it out to me. It's possible she "liked" a few posts showing support of Shelby as a human being, but that's not showing support of her innocence.

Remember, not everyone is a perfect witness. She was probably shell shocked and felt immense pressure to show some display of support right when it happened so that's what she did. As for attending a "BTC wedding" with Shelby, well what was she going to say? it was someone else's wedding! Just like we have been very clear that WE don't care what Shelby does outside of running, I'd imagine she doesn't either. Shelby can attend a wedding and clean athletes can be present. It's the running part and the practice part we are wary of.

She recruited her sister, as she stated herself, before she realized how close Shelby would be to the group.

Look, I know that everything I wrote states the contrary, but I am actually not GDS' defense attorney. I can just totally understand her POV. When Shelby was initially banned, I assumed her innocence too, as a fan. But the more it became clear that she was doping, the less I believed. Maybe the same happened for her.

This isn't a a he said she said situation where it is who do you believe.

GDS said Shelby was deliberately driving to certain spots and specific times to run with BTC women. Neither Shelby nor BTC has denied she did that.

GDS said SH used Jerry's private gym at the same time as team weight sessions. No SH or BTC denial.

GDS said SH lived with a member of team staff in Flagstaff. No SH or BTC denial.

Only thing they have said is that her lawyer said she could bump into the team. GDS hasn't disputed that, but said SH actions went beyond that.

If SH or the club came out and said "categorically I did not drive to Nike to make sure I bumped into BTC women and I did not use Jerry's gym at the same time as team/staff and I didn't live with the team or staff at altitude" *then* you could ask why believe one not the other.

Right now, like much of the evidence/arguments World Athletics brought before CAS, GDS' claims are going uncontested. We have no version of events but hers.

Also GDS said she didn't know SH was training with BTC until after the team started training in the fall of 2021. Emily Infeld had her wedding before that. None of this had happened yet.

Well actually yea BTC is very similar to Postal. Training cycles designed to limit testing exposure. Time trials to avoid in-comp testing. Jerry has no morals or ethics. Shelby continuing to train with Jerry is proof enough but then hired at UO and retains 2 coaches involved in the whole scandal under Robert Johnson. No problem to Jerry. The message to the athletes is clear, flaunt the rules when necessary. That’s almost exactly what Postal did with Lance and its cycling team.

Thanks, I didn't know about Landis prior to this. Thanks to both posters for filling me in.

tl;dr I don't see Citius Mag or Ali on the Run or any of the big running media questioning her.

I didn't conveniently leave anything out. My main point is that she literally can not race anyone for years. Who cares who she does easy runs and abs with. Or even workouts. You think every clean runner in Africa only runs with other clean runners? Regardless of doping or not, guilty or innocent. In this sport if you can't compete you aren't relevant. Look at the 3:26 runner kiprop. Only here do you guys overly scrutinize her every action. In the NFL if someone got caught for this type of offense no one would care after a month.

If we are going to talk about convenience. What about the lab director who lied under oath that was allowed to testify by again in houlihans case or the usada head saying the case was poorly handled, or even her not agreeing to a shorter ban because she didn't want to say she knowingly doped. Or even how she was one of the most tested American athletes prior to failing the test.

I am not even saying I think she is truly guilty of doping or not. I just like to think that this is still a human being we are talking about.

Shelby can at least know that she was before being busted the greatest 1500m-5k US runner of all time regardless

That's why fans here are giving her a hard time. Because most media have chosen to ignore this story or sweet it under the rug. It was disappointing to see. had they reported honestly, it's doubtful fans would be so up in arms. Don't care to be lied to.

Let's ditch the "but she's a human being" thing. We know that she's a human being. She's someone who has chosen to lie to the public, grift money, thumb her nose at a doping ban, and fault a system for doing it's job.

Again, no comments should be made on choices and things she does when she's not running. But we can certainly come down hard on her for not owning what she did when she clearly doped.

This obsession with demonizing Shelby is disturbing in many ways that makes me sad for the state of humanity.

This article was discussed briefly in another thread a week ago in another Shelby thread. Probably most missed it because it wasn't a new thread.

Shelby/Jerry/Shalane reviewed what she wanted to do with a BTC lawyer, and according to the Code, Shelby is allowed to train and make private arrangements, even permitting running with other BTC athletes, so long as it is not connected to US Olympic movement funds and resources. It's a gray area, and certainly isn't a good look in the court of public opinion. And we have seen that it hardly matters what lawyers think, but ultimately what an arbitrator, or an arbitration panel thinks. In some places, we have seen that the Code is so broad and ambiguous, that if anti-doping officials wanted to convict a ham sandwich, they could.

But there are still many myths about how to interpret what the ruling means, that keep being repeated, as if by repetition, they will eventually become stronger. The ruling must be interpreted against the Code and the standards required in the Code.

I debated whether I should throw another rock in the pool, causing unwanted ripples in an audience who has made up their mind about many myths, but the clear statements found in the Code, and concessions from the experts in the CAS report, and outside opinions of other experts seem too often ignored. But here it is, for balance and perspective.

First, it should be noted that "breaking the rules" here does not require establishing fault, negligence, intent, or knowing use. The Code explicitly removes that obligation when determining both "Presence" and "Use" violations. Because care is not taken to distinguish or establish these elements, these rule violations will ultimately contain a mix of "innocent" athletes among the "intentional cheats", and no one can say which ones are which. This is what USADA anti-doping chief Travis Tygart has told us repeatedly since 2015 changes made a step in the wrong direction for innocent athletes.

But, but, but, didn't the CAS "find" intent?

Not in any true intellectual sense. You may find a simplified quote in a press release, but dig one layer deeper, and there is no evidentiary basis for, nor any proactive establishing of intentional use of synthetic nandrolone -- just a baseless presumption that was required to be rebutted. What they "found" was that Shelby did not convince the panel of the source of nandrolone on the balance of probability -- i.e. based on the limited evidence before them, they couldn't rule that it was probably pork.

But, but, but Shelby had a chance to prove "not intent" and she failed.

True. But is that how justice works? How does the saying go? You can't prove a negative. The burden for the athlete to prove "not intentional" is not one that is guaranteed to succeed. We saw how lucky the innocent athlete Simon Getzmann was -- if he had consumed all of his prescribed medicine with none left for testing, he wouldn't have been able to prove the source either. To supersede population likelihoods requires stronger evidence, like testing of the sample that led to the positive. Assuming for argument, that the boar Prof. McGlone said could slip by USDA inspectors, and said could have eaten soy, made it in the burrito, this would require testing the pork meat and organs in the burrito to establish with greater likelihood -- something no longer possible when the athlete is only notified one month after the event in question and the primary evidence has been long eaten and the remaining part discarded.

Did Shelby take synthetic nandrolone? Prof. Ayotte believes so, and she's an expert.

While it is tempting to want to believe this, probably for deep-rooted psychological reasons, it is impossible to say because no one has established the source of the nandrolone with any likelihood, say on the balance of probabilities. This was just conjecture of one consistent possibility on the part of Prof. Ayotte. All we can really say is that Shelby did not collect enough evidence to convince a panel that pork was the probably source. It is "consistent with" ingesting a nandrolone precursor. It is also "consistent with" ingesting meat and organs from an intact boar fed a diet of soy. Both of these are "low likelihood" events among the national population. We have evidence and concessions regarding the possibility of soy-fed pork in the CAS report. There is no evidence of nor-steroid precursor.

What about near-zero likelihood? Doesn't that make the pork story just ridiculous?

This is fundamentally the wrong model to assess the likelihood -- given a positive test result -- of the source of nandrolone. The low nationwide likelihood of soy-fed boar in a burrito is not the same likelihood that it is nevertheless a likely source of nandrolone -- among the narrow population of smaller athletes who produce a positive test result for nandrolone. Scientists like Prof. Ayotte have been telling us for decades how pork ingestion can trigger a positive result in the low 10ng range (and sometimes much higher, like 130-160). This is even built in the WADA TD, with recommendations to treat it as an ATF, and collect more data. And the expert Prof. McGlone told us on the order of 1 intact boar in 10,000 pigs can slip past USDA inspectors. Given 121,000,000 pigs slaughtered per year in the US, it is just a matter of time before the unlikely event of all factors combining and some athlete somewhere tests positive. And we saw that factors during the pandemic made things worse than Prof. McGlone would have you believe, undermining many of the arguments put forward, especially the concession from the expert Prof. McGlone that pigs ate soy during the relevant period of the pandemic.

What is the likelihood of a nor-steroid precursor?

This possibility was proposed as "consistent with", but never assessed. Some rightly point out "but she didn't order a pork burrito", but fail to consider "did she order a norsteroid precursor?" If we apply the same method argued to reject the pork explanation, this also presupposes a cascade of improbabilities with a composite probability of near-zero. That is because the "near-one" probability is that most athletes do not test positive for nandrolone in the pseudo-endogenous range.

Why doesn't Shelby just tell us the truth?

There is no reason to think that she hasn't been telling the truth the whole time. The small nationwide likelihood of intact boar in a burrito doesn't mean she wasn't the one, while many others tested negative. There are no better or more probable truths that came out of the CAS findings and appeals. She eventually said that they had done an extensive review of all the things and that she still wasn't sure of the source, but, after testing her vitamins was negative, the potential of pork ingestion from a wrong order was the most likely or only possible explanation. After all the processes and appeals, there is still no evidence established to believe that a failure to establish the probability of pork means it was a lie.

Why are people for Shelby, but hate Rupp and foreigners?

This a good question -- they should also question their hatred for Rupp and foreigners. For example, 50 Kenyans have tested positive for nandrolone -- a country which doesn't have USDA inspectors filtering out the boars and doesn't routinely castrate their pigs, and doesn't have much money to put up a defense against an aggressively prosecuted ADRV. It hardly seems credible that distance runners would ingest steroids for performance, particularly when ingesting it in small amounts has no proven (or even anecdotal) effect on performance. Anyone who knows about doping (e.g. Victor Conte has been telling us for years to stay away from it) knows that nandrolone is easily detectable, and since the days of CJ Hunter and the 2000 Sydney Olympics, knowledgeable athletes avoid it.

Are BTC and NOP dirty?

Maybe both BTC and NOP, at club level, have always been clean. Despite the CAS ruling and appeals, based on a set of presumptions against the athlete, Shelby's ingestion of nandrolone could still be accidental -- just an accident she couldn't prove.

After a lengthy NOP investigation, and aggressive prosecution, with 30 witness and thousands of documents, leaving no stone unturned, no NOP athlete was charged with any ADRV -- the USADA, the AAA, the CAS, and WADA all agreed on this point.

Aren't you just a troll or a shill?

No. This is something people invent to avoid intellectually re-evaluating their own deep-seated beliefs when the merits are questioned.