thats apologetics on steroids. so shes just some lug thats loyal to the tribe? great, then i have even less faith in her statements about what’s going on. she loves jerry. this damages him snd his image and his image as a leader. she reflexively responds.
no credibility, sorry
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
She's guilty. If you are a world class athlete that could be tested anytime you would be very careful what you eat. Really? Are going to take a chance of ruining your career and reputation by eating off a food truck?
kjvfd wrote:
Bumping this. This thread should be the official Houlihan thread.
+1
icrlp05 wrote:
great stuff - only missing bit is the artificial nandrolone vs natural. aiu reckon they can prove it was artificial. she says the test can't tell the difference. if it is proven artificial she's bang to rights a doper and a liar
Anybody know if this is true? Can they tell?
runlikehellfloyd wrote:
Great summary of the main questions! Though a fan of Houlihan and BTC, I definitely see these red flags as deserving of more investigation.
One other question:
Houlihan provided hair samples to prove she had no build up of nandrolone. If this is a legitimate defense, why don't all testing organizations simply test every athlete's hair once a week? Must be easier than collecting urine or drawing blood.
Why did BTC think that testing another body "part" would weaken the results of a urine test?
I've tested heavy metals in hair, and steroids in synthetic products.
caffeine, cocaine and cannabinoids. iso17025 standard (gold)
hell ya, testing hair is absolutely a solid defense.
they should have been done this in the time since dec 2020.
appears that coaches and athletes are like in the dark ages.
i mean, coach says what is nandrolone?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10404632/they can still test the hair.
range wrote:
NERunner0353 wrote:
The benefit of the doubt should be with CAS.
^ This.
Under strict liability, I don't care whether it's from a burrito, a steak or the inside of a syringe:
It's there
It shouldn't be
You haven't definitively proven a justifiable reason
You're banned
Stop complaining.
THIS+10
High hopes wrote:
We still haven't seen the full details of the CAS verdict but the summary is here:
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_7977.pdfIt's interesting that the grounds for appeal were that her B sample was improperly tested, in this case, that the AIU should have investigated the pig offal in greater detail. The evidence presented to CAS by the AIU allowed the court to reject Houlihan's grounds for appeal.
Leaving that aside, and any question of whether we should believe Houlihan or not, there are some red flags in this case that journalists should be investigating and asking of Houlihan and Schumacher:
1. Houlihan had 5 ng/mL in her system, which is more than double the legal limit of 2 ng/mL. Why do Houlihan's team contend that this is a "trace amount"? In cases to which this is being compared, such as Jarrion Lawson and A'jee Wilson, the dope found in their systems really were trace amounts (0.65 ng/mL in Lawson's case). The claim that 5 ng/ML is a trace amount makes me question the honesty of the BTC team. If your claim is that the steroid was inadvertently ingested, then why try to frame a quantity of more than double the legal limit as a trace amount? It has the air of a PR push rather than an evidence-based defence.
2. As many others have pointed out, Schumacher claiming he had never heard of nandrolone is difficult to believe given the history of it's use within T&F. It's almost a protest too far.
3. The claim that nandrolone does not benefit runners is absurd. Nandrolone has a nasty history in T&F and sport in general. It is proven to improve athletic performance, aiding endurance by carrying more oxygen to the muscles via red blood cells, building muscle mass, and enhancing recovery. Why did the BTC team feel the need to include this patently false assertion?
4. What is the actual claim regarding the burrito? The statements by Flanagan, Schumacher, and Houlihan all stated that she ate a burrito and that the truck served pig offal. They do not clearly state that Houlihan ate a pig offal burrito, instead, it looks like she ordered a beef burrito. So, is the claim that the beef was somehow cross-contaminated by pork in the food truck? Or did the truck give her the wrong order? That remains unclear but the failure to be up front about what was eaten (again, in stark contrast to the Lawson and Wilson cases) is not a good look.
5. How likely is it that Houlihan ate around 300g of pig offal at precisely the length of time (10 hours) before she was due to be tested? In this article, it states that 310g of offal from a particular type of uncastrated boar raised nandrolone levels to around that found in Houlihan's system after 10 hours, but the level returned to normal after 24 hours. This is one hell of a coincidence. A sceptic might ask whether the details were made to fit around the evidence
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10861987/6. Related to point 5, how likely is it that uncastrated pig offal found it's way into the food supply? Nearly all male pigs in the US are castrated
https://www.asas.org/taking-stock/blog-post/taking-stock/2012/12/13/faqs-about-swine-castration-27. The performance improvement between 2017 and 2018, her third year as a pro. She went from a consistent 4:06 runner (every result in 2017 was 4:06, with a best of 4:03 from 2016), to a 3:57 runner a year later. In 2017, she ran 15:00 for 5000m, and 14:34 a year later. Performance jumps happen but they should always be viewed sceptically when they are of that magnitude and especially now what we have a positive dope test from the athlete.
8. CAS heard all of the evidence offered by Houlihan's legal team and determined that they had not proved the pig offal defence. Is this because her receipt said she didn't order a pig meat burrito? Or that the levels of nandrolone found were too high to plausibly come from ingesting tainted meat? Nobody knows for sure at this point, but an independent panel of international experts did not believe her evidence.
I'm willing to listen to Houlihan's version of events and consider the evidence, but as it stands, her story relies on a remarkable series of coincidences. Maybe she is that unlucky. Alternatively, maybe the drug ended up in her system inadvertently but she doesn't know how, so the Nike PR unit put together this superficially plausible story. Whatever the case, I think the media needs to raise these questions rather than relying on gut instincts and think hard about why they are giving Houlihan the benefit of the doubt despite these red flags.
A final point, it's disturbing to me that BTC, and to some extent, a sympathetic US media, are willing to bring down the entire anti-doping edifice to protect an athlete they like. Schumacher has gone after the integrity of the AIU and WADA in a way that risks setting back the anti-doping agenda years. Anti-doping is flawed, we know that but once you tear down the institutions that investigate drug use in sport, or start to make exceptions for some countries as some are suggesting in this case, then the system fails and the sport will collapse. We'll be back to the EPO era where nothing is believable. It's not a good sign when a person is willing to burn down the house because one decision went against them.
+1
Post of the year.
The whole ate a pork burrito falls apart because oral ingestion is only. 1/10 bioavailability of injection with this drug. So you would not get the levels reported. But one injection lasts.
She got caught. period.
High hopes wrote:
We still haven't seen the full details of the CAS verdict but the summary is here:
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_7977.pdfIt's interesting that the grounds for appeal were that her B sample was improperly tested, in this case, that the AIU should have investigated the pig offal in greater detail. The evidence presented to CAS by the AIU allowed the court to reject Houlihan's grounds for appeal.
Leaving that aside, and any question of whether we should believe Houlihan or not, there are some red flags in this case that journalists should be investigating and asking of Houlihan and Schumacher:
1. Houlihan had 5 ng/mL in her system, which is more than double the legal limit of 2 ng/mL. Why do Houlihan's team contend that this is a "trace amount"? In cases to which this is being compared, such as Jarrion Lawson and A'jee Wilson, the dope found in their systems really were trace amounts (0.65 ng/mL in Lawson's case). The claim that 5 ng/ML is a trace amount makes me question the honesty of the BTC team. If your claim is that the steroid was inadvertently ingested, then why try to frame a quantity of more than double the legal limit as a trace amount? It has the air of a PR push rather than an evidence-based defence.
2. As many others have pointed out, Schumacher claiming he had never heard of nandrolone is difficult to believe given the history of it's use within T&F. It's almost a protest too far.
3. The claim that nandrolone does not benefit runners is absurd. Nandrolone has a nasty history in T&F and sport in general. It is proven to improve athletic performance, aiding endurance by carrying more oxygen to the muscles via red blood cells, building muscle mass, and enhancing recovery. Why did the BTC team feel the need to include this patently false assertion?
4. What is the actual claim regarding the burrito? The statements by Flanagan, Schumacher, and Houlihan all stated that she ate a burrito and that the truck served pig offal. They do not clearly state that Houlihan ate a pig offal burrito, instead, it looks like she ordered a beef burrito. So, is the claim that the beef was somehow cross-contaminated by pork in the food truck? Or did the truck give her the wrong order? That remains unclear but the failure to be up front about what was eaten (again, in stark contrast to the Lawson and Wilson cases) is not a good look.
5. How likely is it that Houlihan ate around 300g of pig offal at precisely the length of time (10 hours) before she was due to be tested? In this article, it states that 310g of offal from a particular type of uncastrated boar raised nandrolone levels to around that found in Houlihan's system after 10 hours, but the level returned to normal after 24 hours. This is one hell of a coincidence. A sceptic might ask whether the details were made to fit around the evidence
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10861987/6. Related to point 5, how likely is it that uncastrated pig offal found it's way into the food supply? Nearly all male pigs in the US are castrated
https://www.asas.org/taking-stock/blog-post/taking-stock/2012/12/13/faqs-about-swine-castration-27. The performance improvement between 2017 and 2018, her third year as a pro. She went from a consistent 4:06 runner (every result in 2017 was 4:06, with a best of 4:03 from 2016), to a 3:57 runner a year later. In 2017, she ran 15:00 for 5000m, and 14:34 a year later. Performance jumps happen but they should always be viewed sceptically when they are of that magnitude and especially now what we have a positive dope test from the athlete.
8. CAS heard all of the evidence offered by Houlihan's legal team and determined that they had not proved the pig offal defence. Is this because her receipt said she didn't order a pig meat burrito? Or that the levels of nandrolone found were too high to plausibly come from ingesting tainted meat? Nobody knows for sure at this point, but an independent panel of international experts did not believe her evidence.
I'm willing to listen to Houlihan's version of events and consider the evidence, but as it stands, her story relies on a remarkable series of coincidences. Maybe she is that unlucky. Alternatively, maybe the drug ended up in her system inadvertently but she doesn't know how, so the Nike PR unit put together this superficially plausible story. Whatever the case, I think the media needs to raise these questions rather than relying on gut instincts and think hard about why they are giving Houlihan the benefit of the doubt despite these red flags.
A final point, it's disturbing to me that BTC, and to some extent, a sympathetic US media, are willing to bring down the entire anti-doping edifice to protect an athlete they like. Schumacher has gone after the integrity of the AIU and WADA in a way that risks setting back the anti-doping agenda years. Anti-doping is flawed, we know that but once you tear down the institutions that investigate drug use in sport, or start to make exceptions for some countries as some are suggesting in this case, then the system fails and the sport will collapse. We'll be back to the EPO era where nothing is believable. It's not a good sign when a person is willing to burn down the house because one decision went against them.
Absolutely all these facts sum up to Guilty! There is no doubt in many people’s mind. Just stop digging your hole deeper.
And a warning to certain athletes who drop their 5K times by 30 seconds in each race to go from obscurity and a no name to the best time in the nation within a few months! We’re watching you “dude”. 👀Don’t use meat as YOUR excuse when the time comes
Others have said it before, but I'll just say it is again: thank you for putting in the work and compiling the questions, OP. This is how it's done.
Excellent post, OP.
The title of this thread should be changed to "Lemony Houlihan's A Series of Unfortunate Events."
Something else to consider, which I haven't seen mentioned yet:
SH's personal stance against using the super spikes was interesting and fairly compelling at the time. Has anyone put together the timing on those comments? Meaning, did she publicly decline to use them before or after her secret positive test result? If she declined to use them *after* her secret positive, then with hindsight her speech about "doing it myself" looks like a ruse which she could reference once her positive became public.
Also, I didn't see it mentioned, but she's obviously become pretty shredded in the past few years. Clearly that's doable without any PED assistance, but still... it always looks a little suspicious to those of us who have been around the sport for a while.
Having said all of that, if Shelby is in fact innocent, then wow... she is the Andy Dufresne of the track world. "Bad luck, I guess. It floats around. It's got to land on somebody. It was my turn, that's all. I was in the path of the tornado."
Her coach, probably the highest paid and most scientifically and technology supported distance running coach in the world, has never heard of nandrolone and is too stupid to tell his athletes to not eat mystery meat.
It does not add up. I’m not buying it. I call BS!
This following a slew of his athletes posting videos of injury woes and Olympic trials withdrawing.
i'd represent her and do the hair test.
think guilty.
but hey, lets nail it.
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exum-claims-large-scale-cover-up-of-doping-positives/High hopes wrote:
What I will say to this, is what makes you think the US is uniquely capable of being trusted to mark its own homework?
USADA's reputation isn't that great on the global level, there's still questions about why Lance Armstrong evaded justice for so long and everyone knows that he was caught not due to USADA's great work, but by Floyd Landis deciding he wanted to blow the whistle.
"Since the two doctors started their campaign, evidence has come to light of doping cover-ups involving high profile athletes. Track and field athlete and nine-time Olympic gold medal winner Carl Lewis is perhaps the best known of these, after it was revealed that he had tested positive for three types of stimulants during the 1988 Olympic trials. He went onto win the gold medal in the 100 metre sprint after Canadian Ben Johnson was famously disqualified for testing positive for steroids.
There is further evidence that a US athlete who tested positive for steroids in 1999 was allowed to compete and win a gold medal at the 2000 Olympics. And this, according to Dr. Exum, is merely the tip of the iceberg."
may be too stupid to be olympic champ wrote:
Her coach, probably the highest paid and most scientifically and technology supported distance running coach in the world, has never heard of nandrolone and is too stupid to tell his athletes to not eat mystery meat.
It does not add up. I’m not buying it. I call BS!
This following a slew of his athletes posting videos of injury woes and Olympic trials withdrawing.
Yeah. TOTAL BS.
Lots of wild boar being culled in Texas as they have been running riot for a number of years (though the numbers are now down in my part of the state.) Not sure if those are ending up in the national commercial food supply (unlikely), but they do get eaten here.
I took 300g (amount required to get her level) of pork (alot of meat), chopped it and it does not fit in a burrito unless you are eating only the meat wrapped in a giant tortilla...
I cannot imagine her eating that... unless she can go on zoom and show us how she can pump down a monster burrito of only pork.
something doesnt add up.
and... andd!
How were the levels still so high in the pork, after it was cooked in high heat?
does not add up.
unless she ordered...
"give me a thigh sized burrito of raw pork meat.. just the meat wrapped in a torso sized tortilla. but call it beef of the receipt"