Is Nike Still Sponsoring Shelby Houlihan?

People seem to love to hate Nike, but this looks like a whole lot of nothing more than tabloid gossip.

Is there anything here that shows Nike is involved in anything related to doping?

Or are they just a large organization that puts a lot of money into athletes, athletics, and clubs?

Are “fans” biting the hands and pockets that feeds athletics and athletes?

We know what Sunday Times reporters thinks, and what anti-doping experts think about what may be possible with slower under-trained runners.

Do you have any quotes from real elite performance experts?

I believe that Nike is involved in systematic doping.

I believe that Shelby is a doper.

I believe that she should be banned for life.

WHO CARES ?

Who cares if Nike continues to pay her? It is not your money. Nike can spend THEIR MONEY on whatever they want.

If you buy a McDonalds burger, I think you are spending your money on crap but it is none of my business. IT IS YOUR MONEY. You can spend your money on whatever you want. So can Nike.

Stop trying to tell other where they can spend their money.

casual obsever wrote:

See Epo-Aden.

Has anyone yet connected Aden with the EPO that was found in the room of the Saudi physio-therapist?

It seems unusually long to get any real confirmation of many of the allegations and popular speculation.

Will the statute of limits run out before Aden is even charged with any anti-doping rule violation?

Is it just that Aden cannot publicly coach any athletes without ever being charged by sport authorities?

Tabloid gossip? That's not even wishful thinking from you, that's downright trolling, considering all the evidence:

Proven with a link to NY Times (tabloid gossip, lol)

Proven with links to letsrun (ok...) and BBC (tabloid gossip, lol)

Well known, with many witnesses in case of D. Brown, Salazar's testo cheating was admitted to, Slaney and Houlihan were banned for roids, J. Brown was banned for falsifying medical records, Jager admitted that he was "likely doping"... (tabloid gossip, lol)

Hahahaha. Anything else you want to troll about?

rekrunner wrote:

Do you have any quotes from real elite performance experts?

Yes. Doper and elite marathon runner and coach Salazar is on record stating that doping gives 2 minutes in a marathon.

Do you have any more "questions" that you know the answer to?

rekrunner wrote:It’s possible that Shelby lied to the public, her competitors, her teammates/coach, but highly unlikely.

"highly unlikely" that the banned roid doper, banned for an "intentional ADRV", lied? Hahahaha.

You are on fire today, rekrunner, this fun, keep this up please.

Do you guys really think Nike is concerned that there are people in the US who will distance themselves from their fav. product because some unknown females distance runner took drugs??? On the grand scale of things, how much money do distance runners bring into Nike versus other sports? Gimme a break, its not how successful companies operate.

igotoneforyou wrote:

You'd think with all of the terrible publicity and damage to Nike's brand that Houlihan's ban had that Nike would go out of their way to distance themselves from her. The fact that they haven't done so is really telling.

Anything else? I did ask three questions which you did not address, and your links, did not answer:

Is there anything here that shows Nike is involved in anything related to doping?

Or are they just a large organization that puts a lot of money into athletes, athletics, and clubs?

Are “fans” biting the hands and pockets that feeds athletics and athletes?

You just answered with more nothing. Two times nothing is still nothing.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Do you have any quotes from real elite performance experts?

Yes. Doper and elite marathon runner and coach Salazar is on record stating that doping gives 2 minutes in a marathon.

Do you have any more "questions" that you know the answer to?

Is that the best example? Seems like these quotes would be your best evidence.

Didn’t Salazar say that in 1998, long before he was the elite performance coach of NOP?

Would there be any basis in experience in 1998, or was he just repeating popular beliefs formed by other elite performance non-experts?

And recall, after 7 years of investigation, trial, and appeal, no NOP athlete was charged with doping.

Would there be any basis in experience today, after NOP?

Do you have anything more recent than a 1998 quote from Salazar before he coached NOP, to help corroborate the viewpoint of real elite performance experts?

Robbing a bank and not getting caught makes people rich. That statement doesn't make me a bank robber.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:It’s possible that Shelby lied to the public, her competitors, her teammates/coach, but highly unlikely.

"highly unlikely" that the banned roid doper, banned for an "intentional ADRV", lied? Hahahaha.

You are on fire today, rekrunner, this fun, keep this up please.

The CAS panel that found her guilty of an “intentional” ADRV did not determine that she lied. In fact they called her a “credible witness”. They also saw evidence of a polygraph test, where the odds of her lying were reported as less than 0.2% (1 in 5000).

We have debated for ever whether she is innocent or guilty. That is not what this thread is supposed to be about. Get back to the question.

Is she still being paid by Nike?

My answer is simple. WHO CARES HOW SOMEBODY ELSE SPENDS THEIR MONEY?

WHO THE F CARES? wrote:

We have debated for ever whether she is innocent or guilty. That is not what this thread is supposed to be about. Get back to the question.

Is she still being paid by Nike?

My answer is simple. WHO CARES HOW SOMEBODY ELSE SPENDS THEIR MONEY?

Your answer is not an answer.

I’m not debating whether she is innocent or guilty.

The OP of this thread eventually said many other things, calling them undeniable facts, most of which were neither.

WHO THE F CARES? wrote:

We have debated for ever whether she is innocent or guilty. That is not what this thread is supposed to be about. Get back to the question.

Is she still being paid by Nike?

My answer is simple. WHO CARES HOW SOMEBODY ELSE SPENDS THEIR MONEY?

Are you trying to go pure Libertarian on us? Do I have to remind you the roads Nike management drive on are government roads. Do I have to remind you the vast majority of Nike's U.S. employees received the majority of their education, K-12 or K-16 or K-18 or K-PhD at public government schools. Even the few who received 100% of their education at private schools, all U.S. private schools are some what government subsidized. Also, all publicly traded corporations in U.S. are a public trust. What goes on at all U.S. publicly traded corporations in U.S. is all of our business. Finally, if Nike 100% cut off Ms. Houlihan and denied her access to Nike upon her positive test, that says one thing. If Nike is providing S. Houlihan with a 90 or 180 severance package, that says one thing. If Nike is still paying Ms. Houlihan as if nothing has changed, that would lead one to believe Nike is covering up systemic cheating. If you want to go Nike is a corporation and try to use weak Libertarian talking points, I can do this all day. [Or at least a few more minutes.]

rekrunner wrote:

You just answered with more nothing. Two times nothing is still nothing.

LOL - I proved you wrong by demonstrating that I provided as lot "more than tabloid gossip" (N Y Times, BBC, AAA, CAS, IAAF, ...) But of course you can't admit that, and started deflecting instead.

As for the rest, i am not here to answer your questions. But I do recall that you have a history of ignoring my questions.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You just answered with more nothing. Two times nothing is still nothing.

LOL - I proved you wrong by demonstrating that I provided as lot "more than tabloid gossip" (N Y Times, BBC, AAA, CAS, IAAF, ...) But of course you can't admit that, and started deflecting instead.

As for the rest, i am not here to answer your questions. But I do recall that you have a history of ignoring my questions.

I answered your question — you asked me what else I wanted to talk about.

Deflecting? My post, to which you responded, was about loving to hate Nike, and what the Nike connection is, if any, to any of the doping.

While these things you gossiped about happened, and were reported, it is still gossip about Nike.

Talking about Nike keeping the name of the Salazar building is gossip.

Talking about inviting Mark Block to an event is gossip.

Talking about Gatlin sponsorship, when the IAAF lets him compete, is gossip.

Attempting to link Nike to the doping or alleged doping of:

- AW with doping D. Brown, doping Salazar, doping Slaney etc.

- MOP with cheating Salazar, cheating J. Brown, likely doping Farah, likely doping Rupp etc.

- BTC with cheating J. Brown, likely doping Jager, doping Houlihan etc.

is gossip.

Nike gives a lot of sponsorship to a lot of athletes. Do you have anything more substantial than that? Or more nothing?

I have a history of ignoring your questions? That doesn’t sound like me. I think I’ve answered most of them, if not all.

1.) "No one knows the source of the nandrolone for sure, except possibly Shelby, who was unable to prove it." She provided a defense on how it got in there so this is what we go off of. Furthermore, she and her coaches were deceptive in their explanation. (Claiming she got it from a pork burrito and obfuscating the fact she order a steak burrito).

2.) "Whatever you think “trace” means, the quantity was a small amount, larger than what usually occurs naturally, but entirely within the limits of and consistent with ingestion of food rich in nandrolone." The amount was 3x what she would have gotten if it came from an offal burrito (again, she claimed pork and the receipt showed steak). This is not what she claimed she ate, and was proven that the offal that the food truck served was stomach muscle meat, NOT the organ meat that would have triggered the test. Impossible that the protein would have been "rich in nandrolone."

2.1 She did not claim to have that supplements "triggered" the test, so we cannot therefore assume that's where they came from. And people seem to conveniently forget that if they did come from them, THAT'S STILL A BAN.

3.) "Given the small quantity found, two of the most likely sources of nandrolone remain accidental ingestion by the edible parts of soy-fed intact boar, or possibly contamination of supplements (banned or unbanned)." This mythcial "soy fed intact boar" literally does not exist in the American meat supply. Also, the meat was sourced to factory in which is what harvested, and they showed that the practices that would have resulted your fantastical beast were not used.

4.) "Neither the AIU, nor the CAS disproved, or gave evidence disproving, intact boar consumption by burrito." The burden is on SHELBY to prove this, not AIU/CAS. Again, THE MEAT FROM THE FOOD TRUCK WAS SOURCED and the did show that the factory the meat came from weren't "soy fed."

5.) "Houlihan was put in the impossible situation of not being able to test the burrito, or some batches of supplements, to prove, or rule-out, these possibilities." Again, the meat was sourced and was shown that it couldn't have had natural nandrolone in it. Also, SHE HAS NO PROFF SHE ATE PORK. She has proof she ate a steak burrito!

6.) "There is no evidence that Houlihan consumed any artificial nandrolone supplements as suggested by the conflicted WADA lab director/AIU expert, giving a similar “entirely within the limits of and consistent with ingestion” argument."

These are literally cut/copied from the ruling -

"Prof Ayotte explains that nor-DHEA is a chemical/exogenous 19-NA prohormone which is found in norsteroid products and, when used orally, produces pseudo-endogenous results in urine analysis. According to her studies, the carbon isotopic signature of oral supplements of nandrolone precursors, such as nor-DHEA, possess “pseudoendogenous” carbon isotopic signature at -23‰ – similar to the one reported in the Athlete’s samples." (pg. 22)

"The analytical result is consistent with the consumption of a norsteroid oral supplement that has the same carbon isotopic signature as was reported in the Athlete’s samples." (p. 37)

7.) "Using the logic presented to the CAS, no one wins the lottery or gets struck by lightning, or bowls 300, or spontaneously combusts. It is easy to fall for this prosecutor’s fallacy, especially if you want to believe it." The amount of evidence against her in the ruling is so overwhelming that her defense actually being true would have been akin to winning the lottery.

8.) "It’s possible that Shelby lied to the public, her competitors, her teammates/coach, but highly unlikely." From the gun they were being deceptive to the public AT BEST. She, Jerry, and Shalane claimed she tested positive after eating a pork burrito despite have no evidence and hiding the fact until later that she actually ordered and had a receipt for a steak burrito. They then went scorched Earth on WADA and the AIU and haven't shown any hint contrition, provided an apology, or even acknowledged their deceitfulness since then.

Someone should check this poster's IP address to see if it's coming from Beaverton.

shamelessNikeCustomer wrote:

Nike also allows a 40 year-old woman who just ran 4 sub-2:40 marathons as well as a 2:40 and a 2:46 in 6 weeks after giving birth and having surgery on both knees to endorse their products and brand.

She also could have run in the elite carole at NY and avoided the pains of drinking out of regular cups, but that would require submitting a drug test.

I don't think they're too worried about being associated with dopers.

Hold on there! You're now claiming she gave birth within 6 weeks of the series starting? Wouldn't that be within 13 weeks of right now? I'm thinking the '6 weeks' was just referring to the period during which the marathons were held. You probably didn't mean 'within 6 weeks of giving birth', just that she has allegedly given birth at some point prior to this marathon binge. To whom has she given birth and when?

By the way, giving birth - which if Shalane has done so no one but you seems aware of it - does not seem to be an impediment to success. Mary Keitany's entire prime was after giving birth. Prior to having children, she ran nothing which compares to what she eventually did. Plenty of mothers have run extremely well. Didn't you watch the 1500 in Tokyo?

Ofher than the 'news' of a well-covered-up Flanagan -Edward's child, I suspect I agree with you. Non-Nike busts and bans are extremely rare. I can count on one hand those I'm aware of. It's not just T&F. Bonds, Lance.... if drugs come up, so does the swoosh.