rojo wrote:
I understand that logic. But I just want to be clear. So that means in your mind that Ajee and Jarrion cheated as well, right?
Yes. This is what people need to be able to accept. Ajee, Jarrion, Will Claye, etc.
They are all covering up PED use with the most convenient explanation(s). Given the history of track & field-or a sport like cycling-choosing to disbelieve the rampant cheating is completely naive.
Hypothetical:
Shelby - Yeah, I did it
Rojo - There has to be anothr logikal explaniation exsept all the logical one's of why she didn't do it
Shelby - No, seriously I did it
Rojo - .... Someones probaly forcin her to say that, please esplain to me the scients behind the burrito to suport Shelby? Oh, there it is? Wait, I mean i want consicency with Jarrion and Ajee
Meanwhile:
Shalane to orthodontist - I had perfectly straight teeth when younger, took a bunch of stuff and now need braces again? Well, at least No one is questioning me on why I'm defending Shelby.
Sarah Hall to Doc Brown - Let's call this medication "God" and that will explain my incredible times and workload at my age.
Jerry - Should we rename our team to Bishop Sycamore?
All - Let's just blame Alberto again to get the heat off of us again
LOL, totally forgot about Shalane and the braces. The post by Dope Police in this 6 year old thread is right on the money.
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6350341#6351156
SDSU Aztec wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Yes she broke the rules but that does not mean she is a cheat.
Right, but she has to provide a believable explanation as to why the the nandrolone was in her system and she couldn't. Maybe it came from a different source and it was unintentional, but CAS can't overturn the ban just because Shelby claimed she did not cheat. CAS even stated they found her to be credible but believed her claim that burrito was contaminated was close to a zero probability.
You've been claiming sabotage was involved; can you at least provide a motive?
I agree she could not provide one and I am minded that she said that that food was her best assumption.
It may be that usada’s views on contamination led her in that direction but WA took over.And I agree that CAS had no option.
As for sabotage motive I have none but I have no clue of any personal or non sporting conflicts that there may.
DecaBurrito wrote:
You don't let up do you? Are you thinking bio passport is also a drug? Do you even know what you are talking about? You are even more foolish than Shelby thinking whatever excuse you come up with will exonerate her from being a convicted drug cheater.
Never said bio passport was a drug.
She is not a convicted drug cheat; that was never tested.
rojo wrote:Please answer this. Why wasn't the harmacokinetics study done? And can it still be done? It just seems natural to me that the lab is worried about it going against their narrative.
Seeing that this wasn't done, and with seemingly nothing to lose by pursuing this angle, why didn't USADA pick this up to potentially 'save' the American?
its only 5k wrote:
sanootage wrote:
On what basis do you say that she knows?
Why are you taking my vitamins and supplements interesting to the athlete already think these are giving her the edge in competing so let’s stray from the grey as long as we stay under the limit.
If you are taking supplements to improve you are already you are doping just it’s legal
So supplements are cheating; grow up.
Louis Litt wrote:
rojo wrote:Please answer this. Why wasn't the harmacokinetics study done? And can it still be done? It just seems natural to me that the lab is worried about it going against their narrative.
Seeing that this wasn't done, and with seemingly nothing to lose by pursuing this angle, why didn't USADA pick this up to potentially 'save' the American?
you beat me to it.
The question is; whycoudltn the nike / btc lawyers get the case thrown out over this - its becasue it isnt as critical as you think.
now, i am with you on the Ayotte thing. The moment she started lying and making stuff up, she should have been banned for life.
How is she still in a position of importance? how is she still giving evidence (evidence that probably inlucdes 'pharmokinetics are not very good'.?
BUT, she should have been removed before the case. Like the marijuana - no point in moaning about a system you are part of after it has stung you - if you dont like it - complain.
who complained about ayotte? and who ignored it?
rojo wrote:
disgusted wrote:
It looks like the letsrun policy is:
"We are against doping... unless it concerns someone we like"
Embarrassing and really sad.
I'm against doping.
I'm still waiting for a single person to address the main point I raised earlier. Again, I'm wanting to learn. I haven't read the whole thing.
Please answer this. Why wasn't the harmacokinetics study done? And can it still be done? It just seems natural to me that the lab is worried about it going against their narrative.
1) The current WADA rules specifically state that when pork is cited that a pharmacokinetics study must be done to see if the nandrolone is endogenous or exogenous., not the GC/C/IRMS Test which has a 40% fale positive rate. WADA refused to run the test that is in their current rules (but was't in effect at the time). THis is absurd to me. This is like not running a DNA test on semen colleciton of a guy convicted of rape in 1970 simply because the tests weren't required in 1970.
Not a single person has come up with a factual reply to why my reasons for thinking she maybe should be cleared is wrong. The main point is above.
Hell knows why I'm doing this, too much time on my hands, but here goes.
This 40% false positive for GC-C-IRMS test has been quoted only by Twoggle3 (this is seemingly your source for the information on this point). Twoggle3 links to this research paper:
https://www.doping.nl/media/kb/7048/H%C3%BClsemann%20et%20al%202020.pdfYou will note from the paper that the "40% false positive" statistic is derived from a sample of 5. Yes, that's right, 5. Two out of the 5 participants who ate boar offal in the study resulted in a false positive. You will also note that the authors of that study do not use the phrase "40% false positivity rate", and for good reason. Anyone with a scientific background would refuse to say that a test has a 40% false positivity rate based on a study of 5 participants.
Here's something that Twoggle3 doesn't draw attention to - both of the participants who produced the false positive were male. Now, as someone who thinks critically about these things, I would not rule out that false positives could also occur in women, but I also would not run around shouting about a 40% false positivity rate. If we apply Twoggle3's logic, then the false positivity rate among women is actually 0% (yup, zero). That interpretation is as much garbage as Twoggle's original interpretation, but you see how we can twist figures from scientific studies to confirm our priors.
Next, Twoggle links to the WADA technical report in which a pharmacokinetics analysis was added as an option in cases where boar offal was ingested. The relevant section is 3.2.1 of this report:
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/td2021na_final_eng_1.pdfRojo and Twoggle claim that these new rules state that a pharmacokinetics study "must" be done to establish if the nandrolone is exogenous. Let's look at the actual language used in the WADA document:
"The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis, since the varying diets of migrating wild boars lead to dissimilar δ13C values which may range between -15 ‰ and -25 %. Therefore, if the consumption of edible parts of intact pigs is invoked by an Athlete as the unlikely origin of a 19-NA finding, this may be established based on the pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion."
So, WADA states that the GC-C-IRMS analysis *may not* establish if nandrolone was exogenous - it doesn't say that it can't establish this. Similarly, it states that a pharmacokinetics analysis *may* be used, it doesn't say that it *has to* be used. This is important since Rojo is using definitive language that is nowhere in the WADA document.
A second, and probably more important point - the GC-C-IRMS test may not be capable of detecting whether nandrolone was exogenous in the cases where the meat is derived from migrating wild boars. Is it possible that a food truck, that buys it's meat commercially, is going to purchase wild boar from a lone hunter? No. They will buy from meat wholesalers, who will buy from farms. There was no need to conduct a pharmacokinetics analysis because there is literally zero chance that the food truck was serving wild boar. This would be easy to establish by simply asking the food truck where it buys its meat. As a result, the GC-C-IRMS test was perfectly fine in this case.
So, if you're going to push this 40% false positivity figure, you need to find evidence that this rate applies in cases where the meat is from farmed boar offal, not migrating wild boars. You're also going to need to show that this rate would scale up to sample that would be generalisable - as a rule, you can never generalise findings from a sample of 5.
Think this addressed starting on p. 20 (para. 71) of the CAS Decision. Shelby's argument is para 72. Word Athletics' argument is para. 73. CAS panel's reasoning is para. 75-85.
rojo wrote:
disgusted wrote:
It looks like the letsrun policy is:
"We are against doping... unless it concerns someone we like"
Embarrassing and really sad.
I'm against doping.
I'm still waiting for a single person to address the main point I raised earlier. Again, I'm wanting to learn. I haven't read the whole thing.
Please answer this. Why wasn't the harmacokinetics study done? And can it still be done? It just seems natural to me that the lab is worried about it going against their narrative.
1) The current WADA rules specifically state that when pork is cited that a pharmacokinetics study must be done to see if the nandrolone is endogenous or exogenous., not the GC/C/IRMS Test which has a 40% fale positive rate. WADA refused to run the test that is in their current rules (but was't in effect at the time). THis is absurd to me. This is like not running a DNA test on semen colleciton of a guy convicted of rape in 1970 simply because the tests weren't required in 1970.
Not a single person has come up with a factual reply to why my reasons for thinking she maybe should be cleared is wrong. The main point is above.
Think this addressed starting on p. 20 (para. 71) of the CAS Decision. Shelby's argument is para 72. Word Athletics' argument is para. 73. CAS panel's reasoning is para. 75-85.
Can we now laugh at Shelby for her shoes take when she's taking an exhaustive list of supplements. She just didn't like the shoes, and her faux-moralizing looks pretty idiotic.
Suspicious Jerry wrote:
]
Honestly, if she were innocent she’d release her biological passport. She released tons of self serving data, e.g. hair sample test and polygraph. If it’s not out there, it’s bc it doesn’t look good for her.
i 100% agree . I'm mind they kept this qiuet to begin with.
I want the biological passport. I want her to agree to be tested every day for 365 days and i want her to continue to train and run at least 3:57.
you don't say wrote:
LOL, totally forgot about Shalane and the braces. The post by Dope Police in this 6 year old thread is right on the money.
When I was a kid the dentist told me I didn't need braces (weldon had them). Now as an adult, the dentist is trying to get me to get them. My bottom teeth have moved a lot. The dentist told me even if you get braces you need to wear a retainer for the rest of you life when you sleep as your teeth constantly move.
Yes, this is classic. Really puts a damper on those "she'd be smarter than this" arguments. Uh, nah, pretty clear she wouldnt. This reminds me of Ben True decrying beet juice while hocking coffee. Don't have to be smart to be a good runner.
Also, rojo "asking questions" which could be answered by reading the report, then ignoring the answers when they come because "it wasn't an important question" or some such is classic troll behavior.
High hopes wrote:
rojo wrote:
I'm against doping.
I'm still waiting for a single person to address the main point I raised earlier. Again, I'm wanting to learn. I haven't read the whole thing.
Please answer this. Why wasn't the harmacokinetics study done? And can it still be done? It just seems natural to me that the lab is worried about it going against their narrative.
1) The current WADA rules specifically state that when pork is cited that a pharmacokinetics study must be done to see if the nandrolone is endogenous or exogenous., not the GC/C/IRMS Test which has a 40% fale positive rate. WADA refused to run the test that is in their current rules (but was't in effect at the time). THis is absurd to me. This is like not running a DNA test on semen colleciton of a guy convicted of rape in 1970 simply because the tests weren't required in 1970.
Not a single person has come up with a factual reply to why my reasons for thinking she maybe should be cleared is wrong. The main point is above.
Hell knows why I'm doing this, too much time on my hands, but here goes.
This 40% false positive for GC-C-IRMS test has been quoted only by Twoggle3 (this is seemingly your source for the information on this point). Twoggle3 links to this research paper:
https://www.doping.nl/media/kb/7048/H%C3%BClsemann%20et%20al%202020.pdfYou will note from the paper that the "40% false positive" statistic is derived from a sample of 5. Yes, that's right, 5. Two out of the 5 participants who ate boar offal in the study resulted in a false positive. You will also note that the authors of that study do not use the phrase "40% false positivity rate", and for good reason. Anyone with a scientific background would refuse to say that a test has a 40% false positivity rate based on a study of 5 participants.
Here's something that Twoggle3 doesn't draw attention to - both of the participants who produced the false positive were male. Now, as someone who thinks critically about these things, I would not rule out that false positives could also occur in women, but I also would not run around shouting about a 40% false positivity rate. If we apply Twoggle3's logic, then the false positivity rate among women is actually 0% (yup, zero). That interpretation is as much garbage as Twoggle's original interpretation, but you see how we can twist figures from scientific studies to confirm our priors.
Next, Twoggle links to the WADA technical report in which a pharmacokinetics analysis was added as an option in cases where boar offal was ingested. The relevant section is 3.2.1 of this report:
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/td2021na_final_eng_1.pdfRojo and Twoggle claim that these new rules state that a pharmacokinetics study "must" be done to establish if the nandrolone is exogenous. Let's look at the actual language used in the WADA document:
"The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis, since the varying diets of migrating wild boars lead to dissimilar δ13C values which may range between -15 ‰ and -25 %. Therefore, if the consumption of edible parts of intact pigs is invoked by an Athlete as the unlikely origin of a 19-NA finding, this may be established based on the pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion."
So, WADA states that the GC-C-IRMS analysis *may not* establish if nandrolone was exogenous - it doesn't say that it can't establish this. Similarly, it states that a pharmacokinetics analysis *may* be used, it doesn't say that it *has to* be used. This is important since Rojo is using definitive language that is nowhere in the WADA document.
A second, and probably more important point - the GC-C-IRMS test may not be capable of detecting whether nandrolone was exogenous in the cases where the meat is derived from migrating wild boars. Is it possible that a food truck, that buys it's meat commercially, is going to purchase wild boar from a lone hunter? No. They will buy from meat wholesalers, who will buy from farms. There was no need to conduct a pharmacokinetics analysis because there is literally zero chance that the food truck was serving wild boar. This would be easy to establish by simply asking the food truck where it buys its meat. As a result, the GC-C-IRMS test was perfectly fine in this case.
So, if you're going to push this 40% false positivity figure, you need to find evidence that this rate applies in cases where the meat is from farmed boar offal, not migrating wild boars. You're also going to need to show that this rate would scale up to sample that would be generalisable - as a rule, you can never generalise findings from a sample of 5.
In addition, the relevant arguments and reasoning can be found on pages 21-25 of the AIUs full decision. The CAS panel were satisfied that the IRMS test was conclusive in this case - there was no need to conduct additional analyses. In short, let it go. CAS has heard the arguments on this point and found against Houlihan. But sure, maybe Twoggle3 knows something these experts don't, maybe it involves ivermectin?
High hopes wrote:
In addition, the relevant arguments and reasoning can be found on pages 21-25 of the AIUs full decision. The CAS panel were satisfied that the IRMS test was conclusive in this case - there was no need to conduct additional analyses. In short, let it go. CAS has heard the arguments on this point and found against Houlihan. But sure, maybe Twoggle3 knows something these experts don't, maybe it involves ivermectin?
I nominate 'high hopes' to the lrc gold start poaster list.
i suggest, rojo, that instead of contacting moultonk etc, you talk to high hopes instead.
but i suppose our hopes will be dashed.
rojo, Twoggle/Moulton, and such are just trolls searching for reactions. It's sad, but there it is. Doper apologists, really. (Not apologists for doping, but for individuals who they "like" who get caught.)
A lot of the Kenyans have terrible teeth, and them getting braces again wouldn't be a huge red flag to me.
But relevant to this case, Shelby's burrito excuse seems like an absurd coincidence completely inconsistent with American meat supply, her actual order, and the facts of the case. Something in her multiple supplements containing some the drug seems much more likely.
Also telling that the Letsrun apparatus, including its leaders, has been more vociferous about the innocence of proven guilty doper Shelby Houlihan than about the slurs, innuendo, and accusations about my man Galen Rupp