Shelby Houlihan BANNED for 4 years

Yes but the molar mass is not necessarily the molarity

As another poster, casual observer, pointed out on the last page I made a mess of my initial calculations converting 5 ng/mL to the molar concentration/molarity (sorry, it was a busy day and I was trying to quickly do the calculations between meetings).

The correct molarity of 5 ng/mL of 19-NA is 0.182 uM or 182 nM - still low but accurately detectable by mass spec.

I wanted to convert to molarity because in science when talking about the concentration of chemical solutions this is typically used, not ng/mL (or equivalent).

So basically she cheated, right? If she admitted to it, maybe a 1 to 2 year ban instead of 4 year?

It would seem that the lab or the system refused to do carbon isotope analysis.

In the real world this would have happened.

And she was required to prove her innocence and not the other way about.

Appalling!

What sort of legal system is it that requires you to prove what was in your food to the most tiny levels of detection a month earlier

Appalling

davies report wrote:

What sort of legal system is it that requires you to prove what was in your food to the most tiny levels of detection a month earlier

Appalling

Rule quoted elsewhere but I'll paraphrase: The athlete is responsible for illegal drugs detected whether or not due to foods consumed. If you are a professional athlete, take care with what food you consume.

[quote]the shoes? wrote:

Do you or do you not agree that the food supply can trip WADA's arbitrary limits?

If so, then that is fertile ground for WADA to be one of the CHIEF leaders of corruption of the sport, removing fairness for the athletes.

Is the attorney accurate with what he said in the press conference, or not? Why don't you answer that question? If you think he is not accurate with what he states, then provide some evidence to the contrary.[/quote

Okay, I have been reading this back and forth. It seems like you are trying to blame WADA for an athlete's steroid use. She has been banned for four years and she lost her appeal. Either you are ignorant when it comes to the sport of track and field or you are in support of athletes using performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). The corruption of the sport comes from athletes and coaches who break the rules by intentionally using PEDs to enhance performance. Not WADA and other organizations trying to catch the athletes who cheat.

Again, if trace amount in food were frequently triggering positive doping tests because the thresholds were so low, we would have to have dozens or hundreds of such cases (and appeals etc.) every years. But we have only heard of very few such cases.

Further, regardless of quantity in one burrito, meat from uncastrated pigs is extremely rare in most Western countries. It is also not cheaper because all industrial pig raising uses castration, so unlikely to be encountered in metropolitan area food trucks.

Of course, there is the possibility of a huge screwup somewhere and S.H. is innocent. But unfortunately this is not very likely and I would be surprised if the 4 year ban sentence had been upheld if there had been reasonable doubt. While there is no "in dubio pro reo" rule in doping, in most cases the "tainted food" and similar apparently flimsy excuses did work to some extent and prevented or reduced bans. Shelby is no Ben Johnson or high profile cyclist, women's middle distance just is not such a huge deal and she has no international medals, so I don't really think they wanted to make a deterring example and were extra-harsh.

Harambe wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

Good lord people....

The levels you have to have to pop hot are so astronomically high that it would be impossible to eat a burrito and pop hot or have natural levels that high.

Nandrolone is also not an oral steroid so you can't just squirt a syringe in a burrito.

So....either she's dirty or the lab is dirty.

Alan

Alan, there are studies showing that non-castrated pig meat can cause urine levels to pop the threshold. It's not a -completely- implausible excuse.

AFAIK from my reading over the last few days, natural levels are low 10ths of a ng/mL, so maybe only 10-20X under the limit.

Yea, wasn't it like a pound or half a pound?

That's a lot of pig.

Alan

davies report wrote:

What sort of legal system is it that requires you to prove what was in your food to the most tiny levels of detection a month earlier

Appalling

No legal system requires that. AIU gives an automatic 4 year ban when tested positive for Nandrolone regardless of reasons.

It's just Houlihans team being desperate, trying to save face.

I don't live in the US (another English speaking country) and the bust/ban was on the radio sports news here. The news reader, an old school serious type covered the story when he mentioned her "burito" excuse Houlihan quickly sounded like the most pathetic person to have ever lived.

+1

This case !!!!

I could go deep. However is this not the second Nike sponsored US Long Distance Club to go bust???

Throwing out the word ' Integrity".. Was the CAS aware this case was kept under the wraps?.

Wada catch athletes that do not cheat; that is and always has been the problem.

Duke Trujillo (haha yo super serial) wrote:

So basically she cheated, right? If she admitted to it, maybe a 1 to 2 year ban instead of 4 year?

Understand what cheating means .

Now that Shelby has stated she was at her ex boyfriend's the night before (read:Centro) maybe pissing hot because she ate a "pork burrito" is really just a euphemism?

Duke Trujillo (haha yo super serial) wrote:

So basically she cheated, right? If she admitted to it, maybe a 1 to 2 year ban instead of 4 year?

No. She might get a 50% reduction for exposing the doping scheme, at minimum by saying who orchestrated it. Example Gay, who gave up his coach who then received a longer ban.

Like, only two years for Houlihan but eight years for Schumacher or Flanagan.

BTC preferred to go the other route - getting her banned for the full four years and just working on the PR front. Quite successfully, it seems.

gaz_ultra wrote:

As another poster, casual observer, pointed out on the last page I made a mess of my initial calculations converting 5 ng/mL to the molar concentration/molarity (sorry, it was a busy day and I was trying to quickly do the calculations between meetings).

The correct molarity of 5 ng/mL of 19-NA is 0.182 uM or 182 nM - still low but accurately detectable by mass spec.

I wanted to convert to molarity because in science when talking about the concentration of chemical solutions this is typically used, not ng/mL (or equivalent).

Impressive science boffins here.

So translated for the average Joe, what you’re saying is that even a minute amount of the substance that was detected put the athlete in jeopardy in this case Shelby Houlihan. Does this mean she has a legal case for getting off?

Ghost1 wrote:

Impressive science boffins here.

So translated for the average Joe, what you’re saying is that even a minute amount of the substance that was detected put the athlete in jeopardy in this case Shelby Houlihan. Does this mean she has a legal case for getting off?

On the contrary. " accurately detectable" is the key here. It is not a minute amount.

Even her PR team didn't event try to go down that path.