trollin' along wrote:
Does Shelby have any ancestors in Greece?
+1
trollin' along wrote:
Does Shelby have any ancestors in Greece?
+1
It was always a PR stunt. They wanted a bunch of outrage at her still running even though she was banned so that she could come out with this cookie cutter statement so she can "white knight" and say that she stands for clean sport and follows all the rules.
BTC/Nike are throwing everything they've got at this to try and smear WADA and keep their golden girl golden. Basically anything USATF says is just what Nike told them to say/do to advance the narrative that Shelby has been wronged.
JBaller33 wrote:
RunRaider wrote:
Shelby speaks:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CQRLCKelva2/?utm_medium=copy_linkI'm calling BS on her not going to run unless the injunction was granted. USATF seemed willing to burn it all to the ground for her.
( I forgot to quote the post originally) It was always a PR stunt. They wanted a bunch of outrage at her still running even though she was banned so that she could come out with this cookie cutter statement so she can "white knight" and say that she stands for clean sport and follows all the rules.
BTC/Nike are throwing everything they've got at this to try and smear WADA and keep their golden girl golden. Basically anything USATF says is just what Nike told them to say/do to advance the narrative that Shelby has been wronged.
Barry Badrinath wrote:
https://twitter.com/slorgebutler/status/1405664535998914560
I had said in an earlier post that there's no way USATF could allow SH to run in the trials. The Jack-A** spokesperson for USATF who tried to justify letting her compete shows just how incompetent USATF is, and lack of concern for the athletes who are "Clean" and how it would affect them. The appeal process had run its course, it took almost 5 months and no credible evidence to exonerate her was presented. Did Shelby's defense team track down the food truck and trace the origins of the ingredients used in their burritos? Did they test swab the truck's cooking untensils that are used to make the burritos? Were any traces of Nandrolone found that would prove contamination was possible? I would dare to say they did, and thus nothing credible was found, and if no, they're freakin' idiots. If any Nandrolone was found in any of the ingredients and or the truck, SH had a really strong case and IMHO should've been found innocent of intentionally cheating. That being said, if Shelby is truly innocent she needs to forget about this year's trials and get to work on clearing her name and possibly having her ban reduced so as she can compete in the upcoming world champs and Oly Games in 2024. The bottom line is that she did test positive and Nandrolone was present in her system at some time.
My 2 cents!
Stevu wrote:
Sad…. RWW- running while white.
Is the reason she is banned because she is a white American?
Asking for a friend.
No it is RWWE = Running With With White Entitlement.
She used PED, she got caught. Only someone white could think they should not be penalized because she they are white.
Haha, yeah right.
Just like the white player got thrown out of the NBA game last week. I wonder if entitled Baby James would have been thrown out? The idiot who puts police officers pictures on the internet after he saved someone’s life.
Maximus1552 wrote:
skyboy wrote:
1. Polygraphs are easily beatable and not valid in court
2. Hair tests are fallible with things like hair die and bleach, as well as don't show low level usage aka micro-dosing
3. Oral steroids are good because they don't stay in your system for very long. Its a feature, not a bug. Nobody that is frequently drug tested would inject the steroids.
I'm well aware of the fallibility of polygraphs and that oral steroids clear quite quickly. I am also aware USATF can't clear her. However, passing a polygraph and a hair test IS evidence in her favor, albeit imperfect evidence.
The difference between this case and the Ajee/Lawson /Martinez cases is the firmer was handled by WADA and the latter by USADA. And as has been covered already the individual that gave false testimony in the Lawson case is the one that popped Shelby. That person is not trustworthy and puts the whole case on shaky ground to me.
So to conclude, USATF likely let her into the trials because they felt there was a chance of the ban being overturned and they didn't want to have a medal threat not get to run if that was the case.
I say all this not even sure if I think she's innocent or guilty. I just want to know the truth.
Shelby Houlihan did not have her hair tested by WADA. Shelby Houlihan did not undergo polygraph by WADA. The evidence from Houlihan passing polygraph is from Houlihan and her attorney. Where is the evidence of negative drug test of hair? Anyway, the test athletes and WADA agreed on prior to all this was urine test. Houlihan failed urine test. It is not as if Houlihan failed steroid test within one standard deviation, Houlihan's steroid level were off the chart. Four year ban is appropriate. Move on. Do not be moved by slight of hand/misdirection. There were no provisions by athletes and WADA for hair tests. There were no provisions by athlete and WADA for polygraph. Houlihan failing steroid test is similar to DUI arrest and conviction. You can try in court the next time anyone on let'srun is arrested for DUI: I ordered a regular hamburger, TGIF gave me a Jack Daniels Burger. Prosecutor would say: She blew a 2.0. There is no way anyone can get drunk to 250% of legal limit eating Jack Daniels Burger. Poster, you would say: My friend gave my a polygraph. I sent my to the lab at the local university.Judge, according to polygraph and hair sample, I have never had a drop of alcohol in my life.
Some of posters are so funny!
Stop stating Nike talking points! wrote:
Maximus1552 wrote:
I'm well aware of the fallibility of polygraphs and that oral steroids clear quite quickly. I am also aware USATF can't clear her. However, passing a polygraph and a hair test IS evidence in her favor, albeit imperfect evidence.
The difference between this case and the Ajee/Lawson /Martinez cases is the firmer was handled by WADA and the latter by USADA. And as has been covered already the individual that gave false testimony in the Lawson case is the one that popped Shelby. That person is not trustworthy and puts the whole case on shaky ground to me.
So to conclude, USATF likely let her into the trials because they felt there was a chance of the ban being overturned and they didn't want to have a medal threat not get to run if that was the case.
I say all this not even sure if I think she's innocent or guilty. I just want to know the truth.
Shelby Houlihan did not have her hair tested by WADA. Shelby Houlihan did not undergo polygraph by WADA. The evidence from Houlihan passing polygraph is from Houlihan and her attorney. Where is the evidence of negative drug test of hair? Anyway, the test athletes and WADA agreed on prior to all this was urine test. Houlihan failed urine test. It is not as if Houlihan failed steroid test within one standard deviation, Houlihan's steroid level were off the chart. Four year ban is appropriate. Move on. Do not be moved by slight of hand/misdirection. There were no provisions by athletes and WADA for hair tests. There were no provisions by athlete and WADA for polygraph. Houlihan failing steroid test is similar to DUI arrest and conviction. You can try in court the next time anyone on let'srun is arrested for DUI: I ordered a regular hamburger, TGIF gave me a Jack Daniels Burger. Prosecutor would say: She blew a 2.0. There is no way anyone can get drunk to 250% of legal limit eating Jack Daniels Burger. Poster, you would say: My friend gave my a polygraph. I sent my to the lab at the local university.Judge, according to polygraph and hair sample, I have never had a drop of alcohol in my life.
Some of posters are so funny!
It's funny that posters keep telling me things I already know that don't disprove my point. Again, I know WADA doesn't carry out hair tests nor polygraphs. However, you are incorrect as to the validity of the test. WADA agreed with Shelby that this proved there was no buildup of the steroid in her system, meaning that it was unlikely that she was using it consistently...which is what would be necessary for her to gain any benefit from it.
Let us focus in on this hair test, assuming that she did pass such test, how do you square that with your assertion that she is a doper when she has proven that there was no build up in her system from extended use.
All your post contributed to the discussion was "she failed a test" and ignored any other argument/evidence I stated.
What's your evidence that "WADA agreed with Shelby..."?
casual obsever wrote:
What's your evidence that "WADA agreed with Shelby..."?
Shelby claims that WADA agreed with her. I've never seen WADA actually say that.
Well frankly that information came from Shelby's post. We don't really have any information from WADA yet do we? I only have the information I am given.
I am attempting to follow the science to the best of my ability based on the meager information that we have been given. If the WADA report, once announced, is able to contradict what Shelby has stated, or any other evidence that contradicts her for that matter, my opinion will change. But I am not going to take their word for it that they made the right decision without them providing evidence.
We don't have any info from WADA as far as I know. But why would they even be involved? World Athletics outsourced that to AIU, which provisionally banned Shelby, which was later confirmed by CAS in a 3 : 0 decision.
Yes, even the arbitrator hand-picked by Nike did not believe that a beef burrito, contaminated with disgusting uncastrated boar offal, could have been the source of the nandrolone in Shelby's body.
WADA didn't even get mentioned in the (brief) CAS decision.
SJWhat? wrote:
Well frankly that information came from Shelby's post. We don't really have any information from WADA yet do we? I only have the information I am given.
I am attempting to follow the science to the best of my ability based on the meager information that we have been given. If the WADA report, once announced, is able to contradict what Shelby has stated, or any other evidence that contradicts her for that matter, my opinion will change. But I am not going to take their word for it that they made the right decision without them providing evidence.
Keep in mind that the way the rules are written, WADA and CAS don't have to prove anything to anyone. Houlihan tested positive for a banned substance, and the rules say that athletes are responsible for what is in their body. It's Houlihan who has to provide proof that a court deems valid as to why she shouldn't be suspended. And that is a really hard thing to do.
So far all Houlihan has as "proof" is that she ordered a beef burrito. But beef doesn't contain the banned substance that was found in her body, so that's irrelevant.
Houlihan is "guessing" that the beef might have actually been pork. And she is "guessing" that the pork might be from the 2% of pork in the country that is from an uncastrated boar. And she is "guessing" that that particular boar had a high enough level of the drug in it's system to cause a positive drug test. That's a lot of "guessing" and no proof at all.
Since they started doing out of competition in 1989, hundreds of people have tested positive, and only a handful of them have been able to reverse a suspension. Guessing is easy. Proof is hard.