No Shelby did not inject herself. You are poorly informed. It is also not proven that she took nandrolone on purpose - see her selective lie detector questions. Maybe in form of nor-DHEA from Amazon. BTW another option is that she took the good old testosterone cream that this time came contaminated with nandrolone. Surely that is more likely than contaminated vitamin D, or a wild boar nut burrito that somehow included synthetic nandrolone.
RE "None of Salazars Athletes ever tested positive" is also coming from a poorly informed poster. Decker was banned for - of all things - testosterone, exactly what Salazar used for himself while competing. And yes, USADA also originally banned Salazar for doping Rupp (not for testing positive but for using a too large injection) but AAA overruled that.
She ingested the banned substance. That is part of her claim she ate a contaminated burrito. CAS agreed she ingested a banned substance but since she couldn't show it was a contaminated burrito on the balance of probabilities she therefore intentionally doped. Case closed - except to her apologists and deniers.
Wow, what an absolutely miserable person you must be in "real life". Always a negative comment about the US or any US runner. You surely have never found happiness. The glass is not even half empty in your household, it's completely empty.
k Salazar wasn't doping his athletes, but somehow Shelby injected herself with of all things, nandronolone, yet wouldn't even wear super spikes becasue they were an unfair
Given that the super shoes are legal and all the other elite runners are using them, they’re not an unfair advantage. It’s actually kind of odd that that she doesn’t.
She tested super spikes and they didn't help. Now it's a, "Look at me, how wholesome i am " deflection.
Todays the day! How fast is she running this 3k? Start time is just under 3 hours from now.
margin of victory seems silly, its a college race and Gear dropped. But her actual time was right about what the top 2 ran at NBGP today. And she ran alone the whole time.
So you do celebrate her return. Of course you do. She's an American doper.
You are stupid. I am not celebrating anything. I am not American. She served her ban. Fact. You are seething. Fact. Good.
Wrong. Not seething. Just deriding that cheat and those that celebrate her return to track. That she has served her ban is irrelevant to that point - of course she has served her ban or she wouldn't be competing again, duh - but you aren't bright enough to understand that.
She ingested the banned substance. That is part of her claim she ate a contaminated burrito. CAS agreed she ingested a banned substance but since she couldn't show it was a contaminated burrito on the balance of probabilities she therefore intentionally doped. Case closed - except to her apologists and deniers.
Wow, what an absolutely miserable person you must be in "real life". Always a negative comment about the US or any US runner. You surely have never found happiness. The glass is not even half empty in your household, it's completely empty.
You should say that to WADA and CAS. They are the ones who had her banned. But she isn't the only doping US runner.
It’s backwards day at lets run where the ONLY runner this board has ever said is clean is the one who got full on busted and banned while everyone else is dirty. Please make this make sense (as in … use actual information to explain how she was unfairly banned and is actually clean because there is a report anyone can read on the science behind her test samples that’s about a jillion pages long and is very convincing about there being no chance that nandrolone was accidentally ingested)
Salazar did dope his athletes and was banned for it! Thanks to Ritz' testimony of his L-carnitine injections over the daily legal limit. Other athletes received the testosterone cream massaged into their legs, maybe this didn't come out in public, but some of us were in the sport during this time period, and everyone knew thanks to a high profile figure in the NOP telling us all, won't name names but he's quite famous in the running community. The L-carnitine injections were not grey area, they were in fact totally illegal doping. The testosterone is almost impossible to test positive for in males. Both L-carnitine and androgel were highly unlikely to trigger a positive test, hence no NOP runners ever testing positive. Centro's long time coach was banned for doping his athletes, of which Centro was one of his 3 highest profile Olympic medalists (Mo, Galen, Centro). Sure Ritz, his maybe 6th best athlete, was the only one he doped, not the 2 Olympic gold medalists! Really!?! Centro was dating Shelby at the time of her positive test. Can't beleive people still think Salazar wasn't doping his athletes, but somehow Shelby injected herself with of all things, nandronolone, yet wouldn't even wear super spikes becasue they were an unfair advantage.
If it didn't come out in public, we can't tell which parts are real, and which parts you are making up, or misremembering.
Salazar was not banned for doping any NOP athletes. He was banned for his indirect involvement ("administration") in Magness' violation (which curiously Magness was not banned for) of an excess infusion with too much liquid (L-carnitine is not banned in any amount, but their is a limit on the rate of liquid infusions). Ironically, Salazar explicitly put his Sports Physiologist Magness in charge of finding a "WADA legal, of course" way to administer this WADA legal substance, and Salazar was banned for Magness' failure and self-inflicted ADRV, while Magness was not charged.
Salazar was also banned for sending an email about infusions versus injections ("attempted tampering"), and "trafficking" testosterone cream to his non-athlete sons. On appeal, the "tampering" and "trafficking" charges were overturned, and Salazar was charged with obstruction of the process ("tampering"), and "unauthorized possession" of testosterone. Ritz's infusions of the WADA legal substance L-Carnitine were within the WADA legal limit, after he raised questions and concerns and sought clarification.
Similarly, no one said Shelby "injected herself with of all things, nandronolone". It was undisputed that she ingested what WADA calls an "amount in the low (less than 10 ng/ml) range" -- which WADA tells us is a "usual" amount shortly after consuming intact boar offal.
RE "None of Salazars Athletes ever tested positive" is also coming from a poorly informed poster. Decker was banned for - of all things - testosterone, exactly what Salazar used for himself while competing. And yes, USADA also originally banned Salazar for doping Rupp (not for testing positive but for using a too large injection) but AAA overruled that.
While Rupp was mentioned, Salazar was not banned for "doping Rupp", but for "doping" Magness. There was no evidence any NOP athletes ever received an excessive infusion, and contemperaneous evidence that they likely didn't, and no NOP athletes (nor Magness) were charged with a rule violation.
It's not clear that Mary Decker was ever Salazar's athlete (she said it was Bill Dellinger), or whether she had too much testosterone, versus too little epitestosterone. She was convicted on the strength of a T/E ratio, in a case that, similar to Shelby's, hinged on the athlete having to prove that the T/E test is unreliable, despite IOC labs own research (including Prof. Ayotte's research) documenting exceptions to the T/E ratio. Shortly after Decker's ban, the T/E test was supplemented with a CIR test, like the one used in Houlihan's case -- because the T/E test on its own, that convicted Decker, was considered unreliable.
It’s backwards day at lets run where the ONLY runner this board has ever said is clean is the one who got full on busted and banned while everyone else is dirty. Please make this make sense (as in … use actual information to explain how she was unfairly banned and is actually clean because there is a report anyone can read on the science behind her test samples that’s about a jillion pages long and is very convincing about there being no chance that nandrolone was accidentally ingested)
She would not be the only one convicted of a rule violation, without establishing fault, negligence, intent, or knowledge.
A Code based on policies of "strict liability" and "presumption of guilt" does not attempt to establish with facts and evidence whether the athlete was personally responsible for the presence, nor whether the presence was intentional.
The CAS report explains their findings were largely based on presumptions to be rebutted, and not science.
It’s backwards day at lets run where the ONLY runner this board has ever said is clean is the one who got full on busted and banned while everyone else is dirty. Please make this make sense (as in … use actual information to explain how she was unfairly banned and is actually clean because there is a report anyone can read on the science behind her test samples that’s about a jillion pages long and is very convincing about there being no chance that nandrolone was accidentally ingested)
She would not be the only one convicted of a rule violation, without establishing fault, negligence, intent, or knowledge.
A Code based on policies of "strict liability" and "presumption of guilt" does not attempt to establish with facts and evidence whether the athlete was personally responsible for the presence, nor whether the presence was intentional.
The CAS report explains their findings were largely based on presumptions to be rebutted, and not science.
So there was no "science" in the tests that confirmed the presence of nandrolone in her urine - which her defence didn't dispute? So there was no "science" applied to assessing her defence and specifically whether there was any likelihood she had eaten contaminated pork? Yet you spend your entire waking life debating the "science" of her claims, which were ultimately rejected for failing to meet the legal test of the balance of probabilities - which is a measure of facts and thus science. Someone who is devoid of the capacity of reason, as you are, has no place in discussing "science". It is a word that as you use it is merely synonymous with your psychotic delusions.
I’m sure whoever was sitting at the computer waiting to create the “Shelby Houlihan goes home devastated” thread was so upset to not be able to hit done.
So there was no "science" in the tests that confirmed the presence of nandrolone in her urine - which her defence didn't dispute? So there was no "science" applied to assessing her defence and specifically whether there was any likelihood she had eaten contaminated pork? Yet you spend your entire waking life debating the "science" of her claims, which were ultimately rejected for failing to meet the legal test of the balance of probabilities - which is a measure of facts and thus science. Someone who is devoid of the capacity of reason, as you are, has no place in discussing "science". It is a word that as you use it is merely synonymous with your psychotic delusions.
Maybe you should take that up with the CAS -- they are the ones who clearly explained how much of their relevant findings were based on presumptions arising from the Code, rather than the science.
Yes, there was science in the tests that showed the presence of nandrolone and its carbon isotope ratio (CIR). The science says the low amount, and the CIR, could be easily explained by intact pork on increased "C3" diets, or by pseudo-endogenous oral norsteroid precursors -- with no scientific indication of comparative likelihoods.
Everything thereafter was legal interpretation by a panel of non-scientific lawyers, as well as subjective intermediate findings by the same lawyers of non-scientific arguments based on unproven assumptions and incomplete evidence.
So there was no "science" in the tests that confirmed the presence of nandrolone in her urine - which her defence didn't dispute? So there was no "science" applied to assessing her defence and specifically whether there was any likelihood she had eaten contaminated pork? Yet you spend your entire waking life debating the "science" of her claims, which were ultimately rejected for failing to meet the legal test of the balance of probabilities - which is a measure of facts and thus science. Someone who is devoid of the capacity of reason, as you are, has no place in discussing "science". It is a word that as you use it is merely synonymous with your psychotic delusions.
Maybe you should take that up with the CAS -- they are the ones who clearly explained how much of their relevant findings were based on presumptions arising from the Code, rather than the science.
Yes, there was science in the tests that showed the presence of nandrolone and its carbon isotope ratio (CIR). The science says the low amount, and the CIR, could be easily explained by intact pork on increased "C3" diets, or by pseudo-endogenous oral norsteroid precursors -- with no scientific indication of comparative likelihoods.
Everything thereafter was legal interpretation by a panel of non-scientific lawyers, as well as subjective intermediate findings by the same lawyers of non-scientific arguments based on unproven assumptions and incomplete evidence.
always so impressed by your responses. very knowledgeable and reasonable. you sit in stark contrast to the majority of letsrun posters
always so impressed by your responses. very knowledgeable and reasonable. you sit in stark contrast to the majority of letsrun posters
Really? "very knowledgeable and reasonable"? I only see hard core propaganda. Compare rekrunner's statement with the actual, unanimous ruling of the highest court in our sport:
Rekrunner:
The science says the low amount, and the CIR, could be easily explained by intact pork on increased "C3" diets, or by pseudo-endogenous oral norsteroid precursors -- with no scientific indication of comparative likelihoods.
Oh boy.... sounds like it could have easily been in the burrito, but look, here is what CAS ruled based on the science:
The Panel finds that the carbon isotope signature of the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples is neither consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States nor her own signature.
Notice how rekrunner trickily deflected with "intact pork on increased "C3" diet", while CAS explicitly ruled that the CIR was not consistent with commercial pork but commercial pork was used here.
Not to mention that (s)he sneaked in "intact", which however CAS unanimously ruled "possible but improbable".
"no scientific indication of comparative likelihoods" is not a direct lie, but a cool distraction: of course you want to compare "commercial pork" (different CIR) with "oral norsteroid precursors" (same CIR): then the science is clear: the nandro did not come from the burrito.
P.S. The "low amount .... easily explained..." is also false in this case (while in theory with kidney offal not wrong). Compare that with the actual (also unanimous!) CAS ruling that you and this "knowledgable and reasonable" poster should have seen before:
[quote]The Panel finds it possible but improbable that the ingestion of boar meat (cryptorchid) would have resulted in the urinary concentration found in the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples./quote]