sanootage wrote:
signal hill wrote:
If I was the IAU I would cut a deal with Shelby reduce her ban to 1 or 2 years if she comes clean on who supplied her and also the other team members who were also doping. People must not be naive that is is a one off in the Burrito TC the reaction of the athletes to her initial ban just proves how they are all worried.
Team using Deca; get real.
So they were going full boar
SDSU Aztec wrote:
"It easily could have been apart of her supplement mix and she didn't know."
How did thecocaine get in your system?
Must have been in my cereal.
Welp, mods deleted the "Why are LR operators so pro-Houlihan" thread.
The only reason I can think of are they like BTC so they are going out of their way to find some possible way she is innocent.
Surprise! wrote:
Welp, mods deleted the "Why are LR operators so pro-Houlihan" thread.
The only reason I can think of are they like BTC so they are going out of their way to find some possible way she is innocent.
Nike money is now flowing in to LR. After years of hatchet job reporting on NOP, they took an opening to buy some positive press.
veg -o-matic wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
"It easily could have been apart of her supplement mix and she didn't know."
How did thecocaine get in your system?
Must have been in my cereal.
Any idea how many £ 20 pound notes have cocaine on them.
pointer outer guy wrote:
queen_bee wrote:
Maybe she doesn't even know. The point is, she tested positive and she chose the burrito defense, which did not hold up. It easily could have been apart of her supplement mix and she didn't know. But she didn't choose that defense because the athlete is responsible for knowing what they are putting in their body. To quote another poster's username, "Who knows?" what actually happened.
My point is- Shelby could be "innocent" in that she didn't know that she was taking exogenous nandrolone in her vitamin/supplement mix, but she unfortunately is GUILTY because she tested positive and chose a defense that did NOT hold up.
She shouldn't be taking any supplements. It's too risky for an elite athlete. And I consider her Super Elite.
If you know something we don't, please inform us.
You see them all the time a food stations and given to cyclists during races.
Are you blind?
Breakfast In Bed wrote:
Shelby's only hope of clearing her name is for her lawyers/experts/whoever to possibly do some research on how food digests differently in someone with no spleen and no gallbladder, as she had both removed when she was young.
There's no real precedent in any research AIG/CAS/etc have cited for how nandro appears, digests or is excreted in someone who lacks the organs needed to fully digest food or clean their blood.
I'm kind of surprised they've never pointed this out let alone made any arguments concerning it. I don't buy the burrito story personally, but if there's any chance it's true (along with the chance the burrito was sausage and "pig offal" was blended in with the rest of the sausage), it would hinge on how her body digests food differently than anyone else.
Once I stopped laughing, I agree, this is her only hope, that hope being zero. Not just because it's far too late for her to make any new defenses anyway, but this is just ridiculous. Especially given that the spleen is not involved in digestion it would be amazing if she could show how not having a spleen made the concentration of nandralone in her system higher from eating un-casterated wild boar offal after she was already unable to prove she actually ate un-castrated wild boar offal. Now she'd have to prove that an organ not involved in digestion, that she no longer has, interfered with her digestion of the un-casterated wild boar offal she was unable to prove she ate. That's a great defense, you're a genius for thinking of it, too bad you didn't let her now about it before the hearing. And, people without a gall bladder simply release bile straight into the small intestine. But, ok, for arguments sake, if for some reason she was not able to release enough bile, this would result in her inability to digest the un-casterated wild board offal she was unable to prove she ate, so the nandrolone from the un-castrated wild boar offal she could not prove she ate would not have even been digested. she's not going to have more nandrolone in her system if she was unable to even digest the un-casterated wild boar offal that she was unable to prove she even ate.
You should get a job as a defense lawyer. Would be nice to see you criminal clients guaranteed to be convicted.
pointer outer guy wrote:
queen_bee wrote:
Maybe she doesn't even know. The point is, she tested positive and she chose the burrito defense, which did not hold up. It easily could have been apart of her supplement mix and she didn't know. But she didn't choose that defense because the athlete is responsible for knowing what they are putting in their body. To quote another poster's username, "Who knows?" what actually happened.
My point is- Shelby could be "innocent" in that she didn't know that she was taking exogenous nandrolone in her vitamin/supplement mix, but she unfortunately is GUILTY because she tested positive and chose a defense that did NOT hold up.
She shouldn't be taking any supplements. It's too risky for an elite athlete. And I consider her Super Elite.
If you know something we don't, please inform us.
There's literally a quote in the report about her taking unspecified vitamins/supplements. Just because you believe it's "too risky" for an elite athlete doesn't mean they won't do it. Several athletes post on social media about supplements from companies they are sponsored by.
queen_bee wrote:
pointer outer guy wrote:
She shouldn't be taking any supplements. It's too risky for an elite athlete. And I consider her Super Elite.
If you know something we don't, please inform us.
There's literally a quote in the report about her taking unspecified vitamins/supplements. Just because you believe it's "too risky" for an elite athlete doesn't mean they won't do it. Several athletes post on social media about supplements from companies they are sponsored by.
Maybe there's a smoking gun? Maybe not?
This would come under pharmacokinetics though, wouldn't it?
A few questions for Shelby:
Did she file a complaint with the Multnomah County Public Health Administrator (Jessica Guernsey, MPH, Public Health Director) as her food complaint involves a mobile food truck? If not, why not?
The Oregon Department of Agriculture would have as a matter of law investigated foreign objects in food, which wild boar would have been if Shelby had been served a pig offal-laden beef burrito. <b>Rule 21 CFR 117</b> is in place to examine adulteration and misbranding and was certainly of avail if Shelby wanted to protect anyone else from potentially absorbing something which they did not order.
<b>Rule 117.320</b> within the ODA mandates that records must be made promptly available to a duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Health and Human Services for official review and copying upon oral or written request. Has Houlihan requested records of where the food truck received its food supplies? If not, why not?
Shelby says she ate a burrito that tasted bad and was very greasy. Was her burrito sticky? Or tacky? Does she know if it was slimy? Pig offal has a particular odor. Did her burrito have an off-odor? If it did have an odor, it could have been spoiled. In any case, why did she not discontinue eating the burrito and exercise her consumer rights under the <b>Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982</b>? This stipulates that every single restaurant must serve food that is of <i>satisfactory</i> quality. This means that Shelby’s food must have been fit to eat. Shelby would have been entitled to request a replacement meal, or a full or part refund if the food that was served didn’t meet this standard.
Apparently, as it’s unknown if Houlihan requested another meal (the evidence provided only states that she ate approximately 3/4 of her burrito), it seems implausible that she did, in fact, exercise this free right.
The consequences of having eaten a ‘suspect’ burrito could have been dire in an Olympic year; she could have been introduced to fast-acting toxins (harmful bacteria) and become quite unwell for a day or two. Why did she continue to consume a ‘suspect’ burrito when she may have been food poisoned or worse, especially knowing that she’d potentially lose training time?
<b>Oregon Food Code 1-102.10</b> is designed within the food retail code to provide consumers food that is safe, unadulterated, and honestly presented. Has this particular food truck ever been cited for violation of this Food code or any food safety codes?
Shelby says, “I'm going to continue fighting to prove my innocence.”
In terms of implausibilities, this one climbs straight to the top as she could not — or did not — fight to right the wrongs within the food chain that she supposes caused her this injustice.
CAS:
“It is rather difficult for an uncastrated pig to ‘slip through’ the multiple checkpoints. In principle, boars can be easily detected because of their big testicles.”
rekrunner wrote:
Harambe wrote:
I am surprised so many people here are defending the WADA protocol. There's clearly a lot of unanswered questions abut nandrolone contamination and the specificity of the testing procedure.
It's possible to believe that
1) Shelby deserved her ban
and
2) We really need to improve the testing protocol/gather more data on nandrolone levels in the general population
The one thing that doesn’t sit well with me is how disadvantaged the athlete is in these cases — an issue highlighted by Tygart in cases of contamination in need of reform.
Besides the specific questions of boar meat, corn versus soy, and how to properly test for it, the whole process of shifting the burden to the athlete, applying the concept of strict liability, instantly places the athlete at a great disadvantage, once he/she is first notified of a problem. Athletes are not lawyers and scientists, keeping up to date with the latest case law and changes in anti-doping regulations and scientific testing protocols.
The athlete may be first notified of an issue 1 month after the fact, and then many things happen at the same time:
- they are often placed under provisional suspension, cutting off their main source of income
- they need to start a full investigation into facts that are 1 month in the past, about all the possible ways that some obscure drug they may never have heard of might have gotten into their system
- hopefully they keep diaries and receipts, and samples of supplements from the same lot, and if they are lucky, eat at restaurants who keep records and will cooperate with investigations
- investigations aren’t free — athletes have to hire lawyers and may have to pay for scientific tests
Under strict liability, the athlete is confronted with a wall of established presumptions that he/she has the burden to rebut:
- A and B sample positive results in an immediate presumption of guilt
- a presumption the AAF was properly reported pursuant to the ISL
- a presumption the ADRV was properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the ISRM
- a presumption the ADRV was intentional
Hajo Seppelt recently released another documentary, this time critical of anti-doping, and one of the examples was of a German athlete, who had taken medication that was cross-contaminated with a banned substance. Luckily for him, he had one tablet left, and could get it tested, and his name eventually cleared. But even this best outcome cost him (his family) legal fees and scientific tests, and a lengthy period where he was unable to compete. If he didn’t have one tablet left, there would be no chance for him to clear his name, at any cost, and he would have to accept a nominal 4-year ban.
This is the part that doesn't make any sense to me. If you are truly guilty, and you know it, why not just contaminate your supplement/medication lot with the banned oral substance you used and then send it in for testing?
If Shelby intentionally doped, and was looking for a loophole excuse, she'd just take some of the oral nandrolone she had and sprinkle it into a NON- NSF-certified protein powder, supplement capsule, or some sort of medication.
The burrito story is so unbelievable and unlikely, that it makes me believe her more. I still don't think the burrito was the source of the nandrolone, but I can't imagine she doped intentionally. An intentionally-doped athlete, especially if they had any help from their coaches, team, or sponsor, wouldn't make up a story with such terrible odds. It doesn't seem that hard to taint your supplement and send it in... especially when this nandrolone was proven to be an oral form... not injection. Obviously if you injected.. you can't really blame a tainted oral supplement.
SeemsSimpleEnough... wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The one thing that doesn’t sit well with me is how disadvantaged the athlete is in these cases — an issue highlighted by Tygart in cases of contamination in need of reform.
Besides the specific questions of boar meat, corn versus soy, and how to properly test for it, the whole process of shifting the burden to the athlete, applying the concept of strict liability, instantly places the athlete at a great disadvantage, once he/she is first notified of a problem. Athletes are not lawyers and scientists, keeping up to date with the latest case law and changes in anti-doping regulations and scientific testing protocols.
The athlete may be first notified of an issue 1 month after the fact, and then many things happen at the same time:
- they are often placed under provisional suspension, cutting off their main source of income
- they need to start a full investigation into facts that are 1 month in the past, about all the possible ways that some obscure drug they may never have heard of might have gotten into their system
- hopefully they keep diaries and receipts, and samples of supplements from the same lot, and if they are lucky, eat at restaurants who keep records and will cooperate with investigations
- investigations aren’t free — athletes have to hire lawyers and may have to pay for scientific tests
Under strict liability, the athlete is confronted with a wall of established presumptions that he/she has the burden to rebut:
- A and B sample positive results in an immediate presumption of guilt
- a presumption the AAF was properly reported pursuant to the ISL
- a presumption the ADRV was properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the ISRM
- a presumption the ADRV was intentional
Hajo Seppelt recently released another documentary, this time critical of anti-doping, and one of the examples was of a German athlete, who had taken medication that was cross-contaminated with a banned substance. Luckily for him, he had one tablet left, and could get it tested, and his name eventually cleared. But even this best outcome cost him (his family) legal fees and scientific tests, and a lengthy period where he was unable to compete. If he didn’t have one tablet left, there would be no chance for him to clear his name, at any cost, and he would have to accept a nominal 4-year ban.
This is the part that doesn't make any sense to me. If you are truly guilty, and you know it, why not just contaminate your supplement/medication lot with the banned oral substance you used and then send it in for testing?
If Shelby intentionally doped, and was looking for a loophole excuse, she'd just take some of the oral nandrolone she had and sprinkle it into a NON- NSF-certified protein powder, supplement capsule, or some sort of medication.
The burrito story is so unbelievable and unlikely, that it makes me believe her more. I still don't think the burrito was the source of the nandrolone, but I can't imagine she doped intentionally. An intentionally-doped athlete, especially if they had any help from their coaches, team, or sponsor, wouldn't make up a story with such terrible odds. It doesn't seem that hard to taint your supplement and send it in... especially when this nandrolone was proven to be an oral form... not injection. Obviously if you injected.. you can't really blame a tainted oral supplement.
I wrote the same thing 100 pages ago in one of these Houlihan threads. Just contaminate your own supplements and keep them on hand for when the time comes. Seems like an easy way to dope and then have an excuse to get you off
spinozza wrote:
SeemsSimpleEnough... wrote:
This is the part that doesn't make any sense to me. If you are truly guilty, and you know it, why not just contaminate your supplement/medication lot with the banned oral substance you used and then send it in for testing?
If Shelby intentionally doped, and was looking for a loophole excuse, she'd just take some of the oral nandrolone she had and sprinkle it into a NON- NSF-certified protein powder, supplement capsule, or some sort of medication.
The burrito story is so unbelievable and unlikely, that it makes me believe her more. I still don't think the burrito was the source of the nandrolone, but I can't imagine she doped intentionally. An intentionally-doped athlete, especially if they had any help from their coaches, team, or sponsor, wouldn't make up a story with such terrible odds. It doesn't seem that hard to taint your supplement and send it in... especially when this nandrolone was proven to be an oral form... not injection. Obviously if you injected.. you can't really blame a tainted oral supplement.
I wrote the same thing 100 pages ago in one of these Houlihan threads. Just contaminate your own supplements and keep them on hand for when the time comes. Seems like an easy way to dope and then have an excuse to get you off
The company that produced the supplement will something to say about their product supposedly having nandrolone in it and their denial will be credible, especially since they would be telling the truth.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:It’s possible she took nandrolone on purpose, but I don’t find it probable for reasons I have given earlier, elsewhere.
Yes I recall. You called the burrito story more credible/likely than that she knowingly doped.
In the meantime, we have learned quite a bit about that (alleged) boar offal burrito, e.g. that is was stomach meat, less than 180 g, with a delta-13C value of 19 vs. the 23 measured (which is what commercial/synthetic nandrolone has), etc.
Do you still think it is more likely that the nandro came from that burrito than from doping (including the option of contaminated testosterone)?
Are you? In fact, that is precisely what was missing since June, until the CAS published the 44-page report.
Well now more and more people blog/tweet about that. Kevin Beck was just mentioned for example.
As I am sure you have noticed, twoggle's blog piece was full of assumptions that turned out to be incorrect. JG should not have linked to that, at least not without some disclaimers, imho.
There was never any doubt that nandrolone rich boar offal in a burrito is a low probability event, but even low probability events happen eventually, given enough opportunities, and Shelby is just one instance.
CAS only rejected corn-fed 6-month old cryptorchid boar, and muscle from stomach, as the source, presuming this is applicable to Houlihan’s greasy burrito.
As far as a burrito versus willful doping with express intent to enhance performance, the answer is still yes.
Whatever likelihood you want to attach to the burrito story, the likelihood that a Nike athlete on their (remaining) Oregon flagship team would dope on purpose with nandrolone in 2021, two decades after the Sydney Olympics, is also possible but improbable. Basis for this thought: the same as yours. If we reject the burrito hypothesis, there are still a dozen or more unexplored possibilities.
There are no shortages of Kevin Becks, but unfortunately he doesn’t add any value to this discussion. He seems more interested in judging the American media’s response. Furthermore, it looks like he, like you, and many others, attribute the “claimant’s” (i.e. WA) submissions as coming from CAS.
queen_bee wrote:
Lol, this would be dead in the water. It's not like she is lacking a liver or kidneys.
Remember that Chris Froome's kidneys went into overdrive and starting producing salbutamol when he went into temporary kidney failure during the 2017 Vuelta which he hung on to win.
Maybe Houlihan's kidneys were somehow overstressed due to the long-term downstream effects of the spleen and gallbladder removal and this caused them to start producing nandralone as well as overproduce EPO. Surprised her Nike lawyers have not looked at this angle of defence.
rekrunner wrote:
CAS only rejected corn-fed 6-month old cryptorchid boar, and muscle from stomach, as the source, presuming this is applicable to Houlihan’s greasy burrito.
It is statements like that ^ that give you a reputation as drug cheat apologist, not when you just "add facts".
E.g., this is not just "only" and "presuming" as argued in detail in the report. But of course you keep true to your agenda, and continue to doubt most guilty verdicts.
rekrunner wrote:
As far as a burrito versus willful doping with express intent to enhance performance, the answer is still yes.
Whatever likelihood you want to attach to the burrito story, the likelihood that a Nike athlete on their (remaining) Oregon flagship team would dope on purpose with nandrolone in 2021, two decades after the Sydney Olympics, is also possible but improbable. Basis for this thought: the same as yours. If we reject the burrito hypothesis, there are still a dozen or more unexplored possibilities.
And again "you want to attach to the burrito story" - I am just sticking to CAS here, not trying to make excuses for drug cheats.
"the same as yours"? What? Where did CAS say that doping on purpose was improbable?
Further, again, it doesn't have to be on purpose with nadrolone, as nandrolone can be a contamination of testo, but not of vitamins or minerals.
"f we reject the burrito hypothesis, " - with emphasis on IF; you still can't admit that the burrito story is nonsense.
"still a dozen or more unexplored possibilities" - lol. You should have joined the doper's legal team. And you just said you don't make excuses for dopers. Seriously, you had to laugh when you typed this, right?
SDSU Aztec wrote:
The company that produced the supplement will something to say about their product supposedly having nandrolone in it and their denial will be credible, especially since they would be telling the truth.
Yeah, don't think this taint your own supplements idea is so easy to engineer. So you're adding nandrolone and multiple banned substances into the capsules of an already-created supplement...? Are you hiring a lab to do this? How can you make this sort of thing undetectable upon closer examination...?
This post was removed.
The report says what has been known for months - she tested positive and the explanation was and still is implausible as confirmed by the CAS report. What really bothers me is the doping apologists and anti-science brigade spewing unscientific nonsense and sticking to a discredited narrative that the tests were wrong..
I genuinely hope she can make peace with herself and can prove she is clean, but for that to happen there needs to be strong peer-reviewed, reproducible scientific evidence to backup these incredible claims. Not a BS burrito claim and a load of friends saying she’s a good egg (I’m sure she is).
If this happens I will be the first to congratulate her. Her sponsors and team could even fund this research and prove her innocence. Or they could just continue to whinge about how unjust things are, butter up a bunch of journos to argue innocence, then let her stew for 4 long years.
Your call Nike et al.