Big development: Woman who falsely testified in Jarrion Lawson case is one who popped Houlihan. Houlihan ordered a carne asada b

Hardloper wrote:

colorunner123 wrote:

The problem with this argument is that less than 24 hours ago Shelby and Jerry both strongly implied she had eaten a pork burrito.

They are claiming she ORDERED carne asada but ATE pork. Not that hard to understand.

Her lawyer is quoted in Jonathan's article as follows: "'She actually ordered a carne asada burrito [the night before the test],' Greene says. 'But based on what she ate, it was very, very greasy. The description of the others who actually ate with her was the same. We don’t know what she was given.'"

So her own lawyer is not saying that she ate a pork burrito. He is saying he doesn't know. Yet Slippery Shelby implied she had eaten a pork burrito.

Dr Yuengling wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

They are claiming she ORDERED carne asada but ATE pork. Not that hard to understand.

not hard to understand. Kind of hard to believe though. They're not saying, "Oh they gave me the wrong burrito and I noticed it was pork but just ate it anyways", they're saying "I ordered steak and assumed thats what it was until a month later I thought back about it and remembered it was kind of greasy so maybe it was actually the kind of meat that might conveniently explain my positive test"

Believe it or don't believe it, I'm just saying it's not a mysterious gap in the story, their claim is straightforward.

wejo wrote:

So she has a food log and says she ate carne asada?

The fact she is admitting she didn’t order pork makes me want to believe her more.

She easily could have said ‘my iPhone proves I was at the food truck’ . I ordered pork burrito.

How could we doubt that?

I’m curious how everyone remembers the burrito was really greasy? Not sure if remember what I ate a few months ago. But overall if it was at a unique enough place like a training trip yes. Weird thing is I just ate pork tacos and was debating between them and carne asada. They really were greasy.

Lolol what?? So her story is that she ordered a beef burrito that she thinks may have been pork and somehow that convinces you that she ate a steroid-laden pork burrito that was supposed to contain beef, conveniently the day before she got tested? Read between the freaking lines, man!

22twos wrote:

Can a scientist chirp in here? I’m curious if this an amount that indeed could come from meat. Surprised the brothers haven’t asked anyone for their article.

For example, after Jon Jones appealed his failed test, a bunch of experts showed the actual math of why his (and Joe Rogan’s) excuses were complete BS, physiologically.

There are so many unanswered questions here.

What about her lawyer saying that oral steroid is undetectable an hour after you take it?? Wouldn't that be ideal to take it as soon as your drug testing window closed? Does WADA have the same drug testing window as USADA?

Does it seem suspicious that only runners and cyclists eat meat contaminated with steroids?

Dr Yuengling wrote:

wejo wrote:

So she has a food log and says she ate carne asada?

The fact she is admitting she didn’t order pork makes me want to believe her more.

She easily could have said ‘my iPhone proves I was at the food truck’ . I ordered pork burrito.

How could we doubt that?

I’m curious how everyone remembers the burrito was really greasy? Not sure if remember what I ate a few months ago. But overall if it was at a unique enough place like a training trip yes. Weird thing is I just ate pork tacos and was debating between them and carne asada. They really were greasy.

You believe her more because the evidence shows that she never ordered the thing she claims to be responsible? that's some crazy mental gymnastics you're doing

Moving the goal posts.

Meat is allowed to be contaminated.

The rest follows ; or would in a normal court.

I see the Brojos and Gault are fans of the Chris Froome-Chewbaka defense.

We've seen this kind of doping situation many times before. Shelby misjudged her micro-dosing dosage and got caught. It's that simple. No conspiracy theory about the lab techs or Rube-Goldberg contraptions.

My question is how is she certain that this is the meal that caused her to pi$$ positive without a shadow of a doubt? To me it looks more suspicious to be able to point directly to this meal and this meat product! Unless, you're taking the drug, you've done the research and you've seen some studies that might indicate eating pork provides this type of result on a drug test.

Also, she's tested positive (6 months ago), confirmed by the a B sample and now gone through the appeal process. Appeals court looked at results AGAIN, heard her side, and STILL determined her to be positive. It's not like she didn't have a fair opportunity to explain herself. This is no injustice. This is all damage control and image control for BTC at this point.

Harambe wrote:

The fact that the AIU has conceded that the nandrolone could not have been injected is a big flag for me. Who takes oral anabolic steroids? They don't work at all.

Something doesn't add up. I'm more on Shelby's side than I was last night.

I sort of agree, but is this documented anywhere other than BTC saying it? Like, do we have any idea what - in their own words -the AIU has conceded? All of this feels very much like BTC is trying to speak first and get a friendly version of the story implanted in people's minds before any report is issued. Flood the zone with misleading statements so when the actual report is issued people aren't sure what to believe - if you're trying to handle a pending PR crisis, that's certainly a good strategy....

Intercepted text message from Matthew Centrowitz to Houlihan:

I wish you would step off of that ledge, my friend, wish you would cut ties with all the lies that you've been living in, and if you don't want to see me again, I would understaaaaaaayyyyyyyaaaayyyyyyyand, I would understaaaaaaayyyyyyyaaaayyyyyyyand.

Gault's blathering on about "choices" is ridiculous. Houlihan failed a drug test and lost the appeal. Yes, we may be doubtful of some WRs, but here we have PROOF.

She cheated, got caught, get over it.

Not that I've come to expect much from Letsrun, but you guys have looked like real idiots on this one.

Bingo!

wejo wrote:

So she has a food log and says she ate carne asada?

The fact she is admitting she didn’t order pork makes me want to believe her more.

She easily could have said ‘my iPhone proves I was at the food truck’ . I ordered pork burrito.

How could we doubt that?

This is a bad take. They carefully avoided coming straight out and saying this explicitly in their talks yesterday - instead carefully concocting their sentences to avoid mentioning ordering carne asada but just that it was at a truck that served pig offal.

Further, why do you think she could have just omitted it? Do you think that CAS/AIU would not have dug into what burrito was ordered if the whole excuse for the positive was based on the type of meat consumed? You really think they would have just bought “my iPhone proves I was at the food truck”?

A positive does not mean guilt!

VroomeFroome wrote:

I see the Brojos and Gault are fans of the Chris Froome-Chewbaka defense.

We've seen this kind of doping situation many times before. Shelby misjudged her micro-dosing dosage and got caught. It's that simple. No conspiracy theory about the lab techs or Rube-Goldberg contraptions.

One way to remove all arguments is to just say that ultimately she is responsible no matter how it got there. Now it doesn't matter whether the burrito story is true or not. We know she tested above the published limit.

Kinda like how Semenya tests above the testosterone limit, even though she ultimately is not a doper.

My point is that the athlete is responsible, regardless of the "why." It's like those people that go to some other country and get arrested for doing something that "they didn't know was against the law." We are always told that "not knowing is not an excuse."

You don't even have to go that far...

Imagine if it were a NOP athlete... brojos would be going wild with unbridled speculation claimed as journalism

jamin wrote:

Intercepted text message from Matthew Centrowitz to Houlihan:

I wish you would step off of that ledge, my friend, wish you would cut ties with all the lies that you've been living in, and if you don't want to see me again, I would understaaaaaaayyyyyyyaaaayyyyyyyand, I would understaaaaaaayyyyyyyaaaayyyyyyyand.

Lol but that relationship was over way before the positive test right?

colorunner123 wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

They are claiming she ORDERED carne asada but ATE pork. Not that hard to understand.

Her lawyer is quoted in Jonathan's article as follows: "'She actually ordered a carne asada burrito [the night before the test],' Greene says. 'But based on what she ate, it was very, very greasy. The description of the others who actually ate with her was the same. We don’t know what she was given.'"

So her own lawyer is not saying that she ate a pork burrito. He is saying he doesn't know. Yet Slippery Shelby implied she had eaten a pork burrito.

She got carne asada. Are they saying they all got the wrong meat in their burritos? Unless somebody misspoke or mistook the order, messing up beef and pork is no no in food industry.

VroomeFroome wrote:

I see the Brojos and Gault are fans of the Chris Froome-Chewbaka defense.

We've seen this kind of doping situation many times before. Shelby misjudged her micro-dosing dosage and got caught. It's that simple. No conspiracy theory about the lab techs or Rube-Goldberg contraptions.

Not an area I can claim expertise, but it seems a bit odd that if she set her daily anti-doping testing window from 6-7 AM, that wouldn't be the most conducive to microdosing. Wouldn't it make more sense to take your PEDs post-training and after an afternoon/evening testing window (and potentially complement them with sleep), rather than having 7:01 AM be the time you are furthest from your next test?