Shelby Houlihan BANNED for 4 years

This is the most alarming part of it all. This is not trace amounts by any means. Dont let Peter Bromka tell you or Joe Grey (Triathlete) on Twitter what the facts are. His Nike Bias shines right through

the shoes? wrote:

JBaller33 wrote:

Shelby’s test was 5 ng/ml on a 2 ng/ml limit, with normal values between 0.4 ng/ml and 1 ng/ml.

So WADA has set limits of 2 ng/ml, when consuming pork can tip one's values as high as 5 ng/ml? Is that factual that consuming pork can trip the WADA limit? WADA is not aware of that? Why would WADA have such a (arbitrary?) low limit if that is true? Does WADA 'PLAY FAVORITES' with THEIR RULES, IN ESSENCE A FORM OF human trafficking WITH PEOPLE'S livelihoods?

Consuming 1 pork burrito pork cannot and will not get you to 5.0 lol

tin-news wrote:

JBaller33 wrote:

Shelby’s test was 5 ng/ml on a 2 ng/ml limit, with normal values between 0.4 ng/ml and 1 ng/ml.

This is the most alarming part of it all. This is not trace amounts by any means. Dont let Peter Bromka tell you or Joe Grey (Triathlete) on Twitter what the facts are. His Nike Bias shines right through

Is it or is it not true wrt the report cited by the attorney in the press conference, that consumption of pork can trip the WADA limits? If that is true, then why are the WADA limits so low?!?

tin-news wrote:

Consuming 1 pork burrito pork cannot and will not get you to 5.0 lol

You laugh, but I, like others, are just looking for the facts. How do you know how much pork consumption is required to trip the WADA limits?

The lower limit set by wada are set at a level that an athlete could benefit from the use of the substance.

the shoes? wrote:

tin-news wrote:

This is the most alarming part of it all. This is not trace amounts by any means. Dont let Peter Bromka tell you or Joe Grey (Triathlete) on Twitter what the facts are. His Nike Bias shines right through

Is it or is it not true wrt the report cited by the attorney in the press conference, that consumption of pork can trip the WADA limits? If that is true, then why are the WADA limits so low?!?

They’re not low. There is literature discussing the realistic upper bound of Nandrolone from food consumption, and its 1 ng/ml. WADA has their limit at 2 ng/ml.

the shoes? wrote:

tin-news wrote:

This is the most alarming part of it all. This is not trace amounts by any means. Dont let Peter Bromka tell you or Joe Grey (Triathlete) on Twitter what the facts are. His Nike Bias shines right through

Is it or is it not true wrt the report cited by the attorney in the press conference, that consumption of pork can trip the WADA limits? If that is true, then why are the WADA limits so low?!?

Its not low. And it's also not just "the consumption of pork". If you went to local burrito shop/Chipotle/Qdoba and ate a pork burrito and got double meat, you wouldnt get near 2.0. She was 2.5 times the lower limit. Think of it like that.

Okay, I'll admit it could be an age thing. I've genuinely never heard of it. Out of this long 15 page list of people serving drug sanctions (I had to control F lol) only 2 people were from nandrolone. So it's not super prevalent In Track and Field today, but I supposed it could've been before I was old enough to know what PEDs were. When Karissa S. was brought in, it just irritated me, and I had to point out that in the real world (not just Let's Run) I can almost guarantee the vast, vast majority of 22-32 old athletes don't know what this is. And again, if you're not doping, why would you be looking up all these different drugs all the time? No one does that. I mostly look up the ones that are tested positive for most prevalently, and the ones most like to be consumed unintentionally. In the past few years, nandrolone has not been one of those.

Also, it wasn't really a question. You flat out said the coach lied, said he should be banned (probably not seriously but still) and compared it to super super well known drugs like EPO and HGH. You also insinuated Nike is orchestrating some sort of mass cover up with its messaging. (b.)

If you merely said "Hey, this was a pretty big anabolic back in the day. I think it's weird these older coaches haven't ever heard of it. Haven't you guys all heard of it?" Then that's cool; fair question. Honestly, you probably meant it that way actually.. we kind of communicate things oddly on this site for some reason lol.

fact-o-man wrote:

The lower limit set by wada are set at a level that an athlete could benefit from the use of the substance.

But if consuming Pork can trip those limits, then WADA can use their arbitrary limits to play with the livelihoods of athletes, which is in essence, a form of human trafficking. What was the organization a few years ago that was found out to be taking bribes to let athletes off?

Ok then wrote:

Les wrote:

Since Nike basically owns USATF I am wondering why they didn't use their influence to protect her? Very curious.

Testing has evolved since Ben Johnson was caught for Nandrolone 30+ years ago. The appeal must prove scientifically , the A/B test was wrong .

ummm no sorry bra your a moran.

ben johnson was taking nandrolone but got caught with unmetabolized stanozolol, which is def a strange case as if he had taken it orally or injected it his body would have metabolized it, and it was well in pure form.....pretty fishy

tin-news wrote:

Its not low. And it's also not just "the consumption of pork". If you went to local burrito shop/Chipotle/Qdoba and ate a pork burrito and got double meat, you wouldnt get near 2.0. She was 2.5 times the lower limit. Think of it like that.

I'm not going to think of it like that, unless you provide some evidence to support your contention.

I went to her latest instagram post and gad the best laugh. Loved the sob story of how she had this childhood dream and how she "always did the right thing." At this point it's gonna get more and more psychopathic and narcissistic and anyone not trying to side with this doper will be called out as the bad guy. Let's call it for what it is, she appealed a positive test and failed the appeal. It doesn't get more obvious than that.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Watching her finish at Doha convinced me she was on rocket fuel.

Last 200 in 32 low running wide compared to Hassan's 30 low from the front. 😲

If WADA has set so low of detectable limits that can be tripped by the food supply, then that, in essence, gives them power and convenience to pick and choose who they want to bust. If that is true, then that may be one of the biggest mockeries of this so-called, 'sport'.

[/quote]

They’re not low. There is literature discussing the realistic upper bound of Nandrolone from food consumption, and its 1 ng/ml. WADA has their limit at 2 ng/ml.[/quote]

I think this is likely why arbitration did not side with Shelby and received a 4-year ban.

why are people being so gullible

the shoes? wrote:

If WADA has set so low of detectable limits that can be tripped by the food supply, then that, in essence, gives them power and convenience to pick and choose who they want to bust. If that is true, then that may be one of the biggest mockeries of this so-called, 'sport'.

You very clearly are not understanding that the limits are NOT low. She was also had 2.5 times higher ingested than the minimum lower threshold. Eating pork itself cannot trigger that.

the shoes? wrote:

If WADA has set so low of detectable limits that can be tripped by the food supply, then that, in essence, gives them power and convenience to pick and choose who they want to bust. If that is true, then that may be one of the biggest mockeries of this so-called, 'sport'.

It would be more than a "mockery", it would be a political and financial boondoggle of POWER for WADA, allowing them to destroy the livelihoods of athletes at whim.

Bobbygw wrote:

I truly am curious to hear what Kara Goucher has to say. Lauren Fleshmen already tweeted that while she doesn't know Shelby she trusts her. Absolutely mindless tweet for likes from her money spending fan base and surprising considering how clean sport vocal she has been

+100