He then inserted a big "if that's true we need to write this story..." and offered any scientist, friend of Shelby/Claye/Wilson, lawyer the chance to write this off-the-record. Here're my big problems with this:
1) Huge, unsubstantiated statement with no real evidence behind it.
2) Seemingly then begging a scientist (any scientist), and then bizarrely any friend of Shelby's, or a lawyer for Shelby, Claye or Ajee to feed his confirmation bias on this. "We want to write this story."
This was a really off-putting Rojo rant for me. First of all, this is the type of claim that has to come from someone involved with specific knowledge of the inner workings of USADA/WADA. The idea that Shelby's friends or lawyers could impartially speak on this is absurd. We already know that this is what Shelby's lawyer wants us to think. It's not "news" if you publish him saying that Shelby/Lawson were treated more harshly and unfairly than Ajee/Will Claye. Also, a random scientist isn't going to know the differences between how WADA and USADA would handle this case any more than what we know. Travis Tygart, or someone involved in USADA or WADA would have to be a principle source here.
And then there's just a huge and blatant desire to fight Shelby's battles for her. This is what people are talking about when they talk about doping apologists. You had a scientist objectively look at the case. When that was unsatisfactory to exonerating Shelby, we get Jon Gault talking about what the pigs were fed (completely ignoring that the expert was unchallenged and how Ross Tucker wrote that this sunk that theory), and this is a red herring considering the other problems with it being pork stomach (not heart/kidney), a missed uncastrated boar, half-eaten burrito etc. We have Rojo not going that path, but just saying Shelby would've been let off it was USADA and then admitting he doesn't have any proof of this.
Rojo Claim on LRC Pod: "If Shelby Had Been Tested by USADA...She Would've Been Exonerated in a Second"
-
783
-
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
He then inserted a big "if that's true we need to write this story..." and offered any scientist, friend of Shelby/Claye/Wilson, lawyer the chance to write this off-the-record. Here're my big problems with this:
1) Huge, unsubstantiated statement with no real evidence behind it.
2) Seemingly then begging a scientist (any scientist), and then bizarrely any friend of Shelby's, or a lawyer for Shelby, Claye or Ajee to feed his confirmation bias on this. "We want to write this story."This was a really off-putting Rojo rant for me. First of all, this is the type of claim that has to come from someone involved with specific knowledge of the inner workings of USADA/WADA. The idea that Shelby's friends or lawyers could impartially speak on this is absurd. We already know that this is what Shelby's lawyer wants us to think. It's not "news" if you publish him saying that Shelby/Lawson were treated more harshly and unfairly than Ajee/Will Claye. Also, a random scientist isn't going to know the differences between how WADA and USADA would handle this case any more than what we know. Travis Tygart, or someone involved in USADA or WADA would have to be a principle source here.
And then there's just a huge and blatant desire to fight Shelby's battles for her. This is what people are talking about when they talk about doping apologists. You had a scientist objectively look at the case. When that was unsatisfactory to exonerating Shelby, we get Jon Gault talking about what the pigs were fed (completely ignoring that the expert was unchallenged and how Ross Tucker wrote that this sunk that theory), and this is a red herring considering the other problems with it being pork stomach (not heart/kidney), a missed uncastrated boar, half-eaten burrito etc. We have Rojo not going that path, but just saying Shelby would've been let off it was USADA and then admitting he doesn't have any proof of this.
He's probably correct ass USADA has a history of letting US athletes get away with doping and have done for years.
Hence why AIU should only be allowed to test US athletes as the governing body is corrupt.
382 -
Birkoboy wrote:
He's probably correct ass USADA has a history of letting US athletes get away with doping and have done for years.
Hence why AIU should only be allowed to test US athletes as the governing body is corrupt.
That's one take for sure. Even if you believe the opposite and think the Claye/Wilson decisions were correct, they are far different than Shelby. That's not something Rojo has ever really reconciled in his head.
172 -
He's probably right, but it's weird for a respected journalist to make that claim publicly. Of course he's an opinionist.
25 -
These authorities can be paid off we seen that with WADA and the Diack's. The premise of these organizations is to make money. Public relations for the sport is relevant to that as well. That's why Usain was protected don't kid yourselves.
69 -
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
He then inserted a big "if that's true we need to write this story..." and offered any scientist, friend of Shelby/Claye/Wilson, lawyer the chance to write this off-the-record. Here're my big problems with this:
1) Huge, unsubstantiated statement with no real evidence behind it.
...
There's not nothing behind the statement.
Since the 2015 changes in the WADA Code, USADA has helped (at least) 27 US athletes navigate the WADA code to arrive at a no-fault or non-negligent verdicts, accompanied by a critical statements in the press that the 2015 revised WADA code is not fair to athletes.
It is well within USADA's power (and the AIU's) to declare the result an ATF, which would have avoided all the rest.
34 -
Rojo is a clown. We all know this. He’s the type of guy who thinks that just because he spends his days watching Fox News that he’s a Fox News pundit. But he’s not that at all. He’s not even a has been, he’s a never was
292 -
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
1) Huge, unsubstantiated statement with no real evidence behind it..
Actually, rojo has been told numerous times the huge substantial differences between these cases. But each time, he either disappeared from the thread, or started ranting about something else.
He really ought to know better by now.
320 -
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
And then there's just a huge and blatant desire to fight Shelby's battles for her.
This is the part that I think many of us find so annoying. What is so special about Shelby that she deserves this preferential treatment and extra help? No chance he would act this way for a wide variety of runners under similar circumstances.
311 -
Rick Sanchez wrote:
respected journalist
really?
121 -
Birkoboy wrote:
He's probably correct ass USADA has a history of letting US athletes get away with doping and have done for years.
Hence why AIU should only be allowed to test US athletes as the governing body is corrupt.
Well the quote said "exonerated", not "get away with doping". But yes, this stupid self-policing (Russians in charge of Russian athletes, Kenyans in charge of Kenyans, Americans in charge of Americans...) needs to stop, worldwide.
In that context: we needed AIU to come onto US soil to finally catch a reigning Olympic champ (McNeal) and a reigning World champ (Coleman) and a multiple AR holder (Houlihan). That's as embarrassing as telling.
151 -
long distance dedication wrote:
This is the part that I think many of us find so annoying. What is so special about Shelby that she deserves this preferential treatment and extra help? No chance he would act this way for a wide variety of runners under similar circumstances.
It's gotta be a Jerry/Bowerman thing, but at some point the campaign to exonerate Shelby proactively has to stop. I thought we were there after the Tucker article. But then we get Rojo begging for someone to help him produce an article centering on the notion that Shelby was treated unfairly due to a WADA/USADA conspiracy.
First of all, not at all a story you should feel desperate to write unless you have evidence. It's either there or it's not.
Second of all, this type of story would need real sources, not lawyers, friends, or any scientist you can find who will argue on Shelby's behalf. We'd need proof that WADA is trying to stick it to USADA or that USADA has examined the case and thinks Shelby should've been left off. That Shelby is some sort of collateral damage. But all we have evidence of right now is that Shelby's arguments failed for both CAS and an impartial scientist (Ross Tucker).
221 -
Make that two independent scientists; Runnersworld already found one back in September:
Dr. Philip Skiba is a director of sports medicine for Advocate Medical Group in Chicago and was a consultant on Nike’s original Breaking2 project in 2017. He read today’s report and said in a phone call with Runner’s World, “There’s an extraordinarily small chance, basically zero, that this a false positive.”
181 -
casual obsever wrote:
Make that two independent scientists; Runnersworld already found one back in September:
Dr. Philip Skiba is a director of sports medicine for Advocate Medical Group in Chicago and was a consultant on Nike’s original Breaking2 project in 2017. He read today’s report and said in a phone call with Runner’s World, “There’s an extraordinarily small chance, basically zero, that this a false positive.”
So you're saying there's a chance?
170 -
Foam Rollah wrote:
Rojo is a clown. We all know this. He’s the type of guy who thinks that just because he spends his days watching Fox News that he’s a Fox News pundit. But he’s not that at all. He’s not even a has been, he’s a never was
Born on third base, waddled back to first and thinks he hit a home run.
200 -
Yeah, it was a weird rant, and I don't understand his repeated insistence that USADA would have let Houlihan skate on this.
Let's be clear, Travis Tygart is not at all shy about intervening in discussions about high-profile doping bans, even (maybe especially) when it means criticising WADA/AIU. Tygart has been very vocal on the Shayna Jack case, arguing she should have been given a no-fault finding. Yet, Tygart hasn't said a single word about Houlihan's case (other than to say she wasn't allowed to compete at the trials). So here we have the head of USADA, not publicity-shy, who also believes some athletes may be ingesting PEDs inadvertently via food and supplements, and still, he hasn't raised a single concern about Houlihan's case or how it has been handled. Silence can speak volumes.
211 -
long distance dedication wrote:
So you're saying there's a chance?
LOL, yes. I can see that this will turn in yet another fun thread about this convicted doper.
21 -
Rojo's interference-running has reached the point where it has become tiresome, delusional, and pathetic. The cloud of doubt he keeps pointing to doesn't exist, and the case against Shelby's is so overwhelming and conclusive and her defense is so lacking in evidence" that keeping this up is, frankly, eroding what little reputation he had left. ROJO needs to transparently and directly explain why he believes Shelby and continues to carry water so much for her and Jerry, otherwise he 100% deserves the piling-in he's getting.
And no, speculating about "alternative explanations" won't cut it as Shelby's own team has not provided one and, to my knowledge, there is no evidence to suggest an alternative source other than the "recovery pills" with nandrolone in them that the AIU said would have matched the isotope signatures, which would STILL have resulted in a multi-year doping suspension.300 -
What did you expect? The Brojos are not the brightest tools in the shed.
Rojo can pretend to be impartial and non-biased as he wants, but what he said on that podcast just show that he's one of those types that come to a conclusion first and then look for evidence to support it. I won't comment on why he feels such a strange, deep compulsion to exonerate Shelby, but we all know why...
201 -
Rojo is right, the USADA has never returned any positives tests for Lance Armstrong or Galen Rupp or actually any real American elite athlete or any noteriety. The USADA is more corrupt than its Russian counterparts.
144
