Burritogate All Comes Down to Corn

rekrunner wrote:

Who said she injected steroids?

We haven’t seen the detailed CAS report, but according to Houlihan’s and her lawyer’s announcement, the AIU was in agreement that steroids weren’t injected.

Hahaha. Nice deflection. While we indeed haven't seen the details yet, we have seen in writing that Houlihan "was found to have committed an intentional ADRV" by the unanimous CAS decision based on her positive A and B test for an anabolic steroid. Maybe injected, maybe taken orally, maybe sublingual, maybe as a cream - doesn't matter how she roided up.

Let me rephrase runnerboy70's statement so you can't argue against it:

Lol...People twisting themselves into knots trying to explain away steroid using athletes.

Do they even believe their own bullchit?

SeattleSilver wrote:

Shelby's team said a lot of things. Have they even shown that she ate a pork burrito? Have they shown that she even ate any burrito? There is a lot of scientific discussion on this thread, all balanced on a pinprick assertion that is, at best, a "maybe she really ate some pork".

Part of the problem facing athletes is — can they be reasonably expected to show what they ate, at some date in the previous 4-5 weeks? Should athletes have that burden, and is that burden reasonably achievable? In Houlihan’s case, they proposed an obvious “most likely” candidate. Is it always going to be that obvious for all athletes? What if you are a Kenyan, eating various pork meals from local farmers routinely? What if it was a bunch of friends getting together, and making the pork burritos in a kind of potluck gathering? Would it even be possible to collect sufficient evidence to show it to a panel on the balance of probability?

If a pork burrito is not the most likely option, what are the alternatives? Let’s apply the same standard of proof. Has anyone shown the likeliness of these alternatives?

This highlights another problem facing athletes. WADA doesn’t prove intent or identify the source. If athletes fail to meet the burden required by “guilty until proven innocent”, the way the WADA code is worded, with “intent” given a special meaning just for this clause, the unproven, but default, presumption is an intentional rule violation.

If your job depends on it you keep a daily food diary. You can do it in a $0.25 notebook or MyFitessPal but at the end of the day if you are a pro athlete that could face a false-positive you keep the records.

That being said, it wouldn't matter if she had photos of everything she has ever eaten because there is zero chance she failed her test because of a tainted burrito. The best case scenario for her is that she was micro dosing and the burrito pushed her over the limit but as unlikely as that is (I'd say less likely than winning PowerBall ten times in a row) the problem still wouldn't be the burrito, it would be the micro dosing.

The meat would have had to of been raw to produce the numbers that it did. Heat destroy's nandralone decanoate.

Read the study I referenced in the original post (and any other on the subject). The test subjects ate cooked wild boar meat and still tested positive for the metabolites from nandrolone. The WADA technical document states this as well.

But many of you are missing the main point of my original post, which is not about Shelby. It is that athletes coming from countries or areas which lack highly regulated, centralized meat processing systems for pork (and other meats) are much more likely to test positive for nandrolone and other naturally occurring steroids, which may be an underhanded way to help industrial-style countries cull top athletes from less "developed" countries such as Kenya and Ethiopia.

Shelby is a DRUG CHEAT, stop using all manner of mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible.

aoifjafijdfa;f wrote:

If your job depends on it you keep a daily food diary. You can do it in a $0.25 notebook or MyFitessPal but at the end of the day if you are a pro athlete that could face a false-positive you keep the records.

That being said, it wouldn't matter if she had photos of everything she has ever eaten because there is zero chance she failed her test because of a tainted burrito. The best case scenario for her is that she was micro dosing and the burrito pushed her over the limit but as unlikely as that is (I'd say less likely than winning PowerBall ten times in a row) the problem still wouldn't be the burrito, it would be the micro dosing.

Keeping a daily food diary in a 25 cent notebook is not enough evidence to mount a legal defense to convince a panel of arbiters on the balance of probability.

Recall what was asked of Jarrion Lawson — records and details from the restaurant of all meat purchases over a three month period.

Recall what many are asking here — Nike should fund the testing of meat from the food truck or pigs from the farmers.

Your “zero chance” is a brown-tinged statistic coming from nowhere. At least one expert in the practice of doping athletes with steroids say there is even less chance that a sophisticated athlete would be doping with nandrolone, due to its ease of detectability, as long as 18 months from one dose.

In case you didn’t read twoggle’s lengthy researched opinion, here is what he wrote about Jarrion Lawson accused of doping with “Trenbolone”:

Jarrion Lawson got “lucky” that Director of the WADA Laboratory Director in Montreal, Dr. Christiane Ayotte had not been honest in her testimony, and that the arbitrators were sympathetic to that on appeal.

This is clearly not any athlete’s job, and you cannot do this in a $0.25 notebook or MyFitessPal (sic).

How does SH know the burrito was made of (uncastrated) boar meat? Let alone she says she ordered beef burrito.

"Boar taint is an unpleasant odor or taste that many consumers would notice if they cooked or ate pork from male pigs that had reached puberty. It has been compared to the smell of urine, feces and sweat. Boar taint most often occurs in pork from male pigs that were not castrated."

I can never believe SH ate at least 310g (pure pork, not counting the rest of the burrito) of that disgusting crap meal.

“We take the allegations very seriously, as Nike does not condone the use of performance-enhancing drugs in any manner.”

Anyone recall that concerning the Kara Goucher's allegations that Salazar had skirted antidoping rules with NOP elite runners?

Nike faced criticism in 2019 for suspending female athletes’ pay during pregnancy. Alysia Montano and Kara Goucher spoke out in a NYT OpEd piece about their former contracts, which did not guarantee protection for pregnant athletes and new mothers.

Nike, taking things very seriously, created change, with the new contract reading:" If ATHLETE becomes pregnant, NIKE may not apply any performance-related reductions (if any) for a consecutive period of 18 months, beginning eight months prior to ATHLETE's due date. During such period NIKE may not apply any right of termination (if any) as a result of ATHLETE not competing due to pregnancy."

What's the relevancy here?

Nike apparently takes things in their interest very seriously. Pertaining to their anti-doping stance, they shut down NOP less than two weeks following Salazar's four-year ban for doping violations. They bent to the will of the two athletes, Montanyo and Goucher.

If Nike, with its wide net of influence to create and effect change, doesn't step up to fully, thoroughly and categorically investigate the circumstances surrounding the fastest-ever middle distance runner in the country, what good's the lip service about taking things very seriously? Unless within the six months before the dog and pony show .... they realised that they can't condone the use of performance-enhancing drugs in any manner.

You do understand wild boar isn't the same as free range boar? Nobody eats wild boar, no restaurant/food truck sources wild boar and then serve it to its' patrons.

Shelby DRUG CHEAT Houlihan wrote:

Shelby is a DRUG CHEAT, stop using all manner of mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible.

Exactly. That’s what it comes down to. Her story is flimsy and we’ve heard similar ones in the past.