Malcolm Gladwell: Why Was the Decision in Shelby Houlihan’s Doping Case So Unsatisfying?

I found the CAS decision in the Houlihan case very satisfying and I imagine those who actually care about clean sport did as well.

It wasn't unsatisfying

It was satisfying.

And tasty too.

Kinda like a greasy burrito from an authentic Mexican food truck! 😋

The thing is, Gladwell's whole grift is being deliberately obtuse. The decision is only unsatisfying if you want something more than "athlete cheated to try and gain an advantage." It's an old story, but one repeated often. Personally, I found the decision and reasoning to be very satisfying, but then I enjoy seeing obvious lies pulled apart by skilled professionals, experts in their field. Gladwell enjoys counterintuitive stories, even if they fall to pieces under light scrutiny.

Thanks for time-stamping the rant, and the length. I'll be ready with the skip

I seriously doubt that Shelby was the one who was administering the steroids. While there certainly are cases where athletes go to Mexico to get EPO or steroids, most dopers these days are relying on someone who claims to have perfected a micro dosing scheme that evades detection. The pitch to the athlete is usually something along the lines of it doesn't matter how hard you work, the people who are beating you right now are microdosing and will never get caught. If you do it too, you are just leveling the playing field. If you don't, you will never have a shot at a medal or diamond league win. Then, it doesn't take much more than a little mistake for the microdoser to administer a detectable amount of steroids. Athletes are genuinely shocked by the positive test because they have been getting away with it and know others who get away with it.

High hopes wrote:

The thing is, Gladwell's whole grift is being deliberately obtuse. The decision is only unsatisfying if you want something more than "athlete cheated to try and gain an advantage." It's an old story, but one repeated often. Personally, I found the decision and reasoning to be very satisfying, but then I enjoy seeing obvious lies pulled apart by skilled professionals, experts in their field. Gladwell enjoys counterintuitive stories, even if they fall to pieces under light scrutiny.

+1.

Sure, it might be satisfying if we ever found out exactly what she was doing (oral nandrolone, tainted supplement, designer drug, etc.) but knowing that she was caught cheating and dealt with accordingly is enough satisfaction.

I mostly agree with Gladwell on this one. Though, if you don't, it doesn't mean you're wrong. Satisfaction is an individual emotional response, and I have no idea what gets you off.

The system we have makes sense: We have a list of prohibited substances, and if you have one in your system, it's on you to prove that it got there innocently. Any other system simply wouldn't work. Heck, the system we have barely works. Applying these sensible rules, there is simply no way not to ban Shelby.

But Gladwell is right that this "test, then burden-shift" approach, no matter how sensible it is, doesn't give us a story about what happened. I think the most likely explanation is that she ingested something that was contaminated. There are two main possibilities: Either it was a legal supplement or it was a different illegal substance. My money is on the latter, for a few reasons: If you're taking legal supplements, you'd be dumb not (1) stick to the most reputable manufacturers and (2) keep doses for future testing under just these circumstances. If what she took was something else that's illegal, it's much harder to know that the lab employs strict quality control measures. Plus you obviously can't say, "no, I wasn't doping with this, I was actually doping with that!"

800 dude wrote:

But Gladwell is right that this "test, then burden-shift" approach, no matter how sensible it is, doesn't give us a story about what happened. I think the most likely explanation is that she ingested something that was contaminated. There are two main possibilities: Either it was a legal supplement or it was a different illegal substance. My money is on the latter, for a few reasons: If you're taking legal supplements, you'd be dumb not (1) stick to the most reputable manufacturers and (2) keep doses for future testing under just these circumstances. If what she took was something else that's illegal, it's much harder to know that the lab employs strict quality control measures. Plus you obviously can't say, "no, I wasn't doping with this, I was actually doping with that!"

Yes, every time someone gets popped for Nandrolone it's always the same mental gymnastics around why anyone would dope with it. I guess I'm disappointed Epstein, Gault, the Brojos and Gladwell fall into the trap.

But really as we are aware of nowadays a lot of doping occurs on the margins. When you are trying to get away with subtle things like micro-dosing/allegedly undetectable PEDs/supplements that provide PED-like benefits you are working with imprecise manufacturers, supplement-makers, labs, suppliers and the like. Why do we think random Kenyans test positive for this drug? It is highly detectable and finds its way in. The shoddier supplier you're dealing with the more likely it is to happen. No, Shelby wasn't trying to dope with Nandrolone but yes she sought an advantage and some trace Nandrolone from a different PED did her in.

The more I think about Gladwell's piece, the more I think his title should not have a question mark at the end of it. He's making a statement, not asking a question. It should be "Why Was the Decision in Shelby Houlihan’s Doping Case So Unsatisfying" not "Why Was the Decision in Shelby Houlihan’s Doping Case So Unsatisfying?"

LRC note. This post was edited as it initially included a typo.

Probably this.. and then started getting a little greedy with the syringe plunger.

High hopes wrote:

The thing is, Gladwell's whole grift is being deliberately obtuse. The decision is only unsatisfying if you want something more than "athlete cheated to try and gain an advantage." It's an old story, but one repeated often. Personally, I found the decision and reasoning to be very satisfying, but then I enjoy seeing obvious lies pulled apart by skilled professionals, experts in their field. Gladwell enjoys counterintuitive stories, even if they fall to pieces under light scrutiny.

Underground gear is often contaminated or fake. Plenty of explanations exist. Gladwell argues in bad faith and casuistry. Everyone ought to have realized this by now.

What you stated applies to many criminals. Individuals getting away with drinking and driving at .09 B.A.C. until ... . Drug mule got away with it until ... . Bank robber thought he or she always had 2 1/2 minutes to get away until that one day ... . Drug dealer had been getting away with it until law enforcement monitored her or his phone. Micro-dosers are no different.