16 Questions That Need To Be Answered In The Shelby Houlihan Case

Burrito man wrote:

When Jerry Schumacher said he had never heard of Nandrolone, I knew she doped.

Case closed.

I know a lot of people feel this about that one thing. I DO NOT AGREE . WHY? I didn't know what it is. If somsone said to me, what is nandrolone before this? I would say, "I have no idea. A steroid?"

I still don't get why you need to know what's on the WADA list if you are'nt doping your athletes. At Cornell, the kids ate food. If someone got sick or something and got a prescription, then we'd look up whatever med they were on.

davies report wrote:

Read the posts on the Paul Edwards case to see how flawed the system is and how the evidence can be changed and how the Doping control world conspire to protect itself..

Can someone give me a Cliffs note version of his case? I keep hearing about it.

Rojo going to bat for whitey US doper... Coleman had the opposite treatment... hmmmm...

High hopes wrote:

1. For T&F journalists - Do you think you can report on your subjects impartially? If so, why has it taken a week for any publication to even start questioning the account put forward by the BTC team? .

When I had the gall to ask Cooper Teare how much his shoes helped him in the 5k, there was a multiple page thread saying it was an inappropriate question and that I had to be on the spectrum.

rojo wrote:

Burrito man wrote:

When Jerry Schumacher said he had never heard of Nandrolone, I knew she doped.

Case closed.

I know a lot of people feel this about that one thing. I DO NOT AGREE . WHY? I didn't know what it is. If somsone said to me, what is nandrolone before this? I would say, "I have no idea. A steroid?"

I still don't get why you need to know what's on the WADA list if you are'nt doping your athletes. At Cornell, the kids ate food. If someone got sick or something and got a prescription, then we'd look up whatever med they were on.

I agree it's not a smoking gun, but it's certainly a red flag. I mean, next to EPO, it's up there as one of the most abused PEDs. Even if he weren't doping his athletes, I think he'd still be aware of it to warn his runners from time to time of the pitfalls of taking unregulated supplements which are often tainted with it.

burritogate wrote:

quote post wrote:

So you didn’t try to verify the story? Very suspect. What’s your agenda?

He was trying to verify the story … by calling the relevant agent. Are you dense?

Back to the Haas thing.

If memory serves me correctly, our plan was to call Haas. If he didn't deny it, we were probably going to publishing something along the lines of, "We've heard from multiple sources Houlihan. Her agent refused to deny it was true."

His non-denial would have made us confident enough to publish on what we heard. But when he denied it to us, we therefore decided it would be iressponsible for us to publish. That being said, we did mention it on the podcast.

Please stop we were trying to help cover this up.

They had six months to sort this out, and were not able to do so. SH is guilty. Full stop.

rojo wrote:

Burrito man wrote:

When Jerry Schumacher said he had never heard of Nandrolone, I knew she doped.

Case closed.

I know a lot of people feel this about that one thing. I DO NOT AGREE . WHY? I didn't know what it is. If somsone said to me, what is nandrolone before this? I would say, "I have no idea. A steroid?"

I still don't get why you need to know what's on the WADA list if you are'nt doping your athletes. At Cornell, the kids ate food. If someone got sick or something and got a prescription, then we'd look up whatever med they were on.

The difference is that Schumacher is coach of elite runners who are tested all the time.

Rojo, you are a journalist. I would not expect you to know what nandrolone is. But I am very surprised that a top-level Nike coach doesn't know what his athletes are getting tested for month in and month out -- particularly if only to avoid the exact "false positive" situation Houlihan is in.

John_James_413 wrote:

More LOL.

Then she claims it's the burrito trucks fault.

Here is a direct quote from the CBC web page.

...........................................................""" "You're a professional track coach in this environment where positive tests for all types of drugs, nandrolone included, happen all the time and you've never heard of this drug?" Campbell questioned.

Along with the ban, McPeak pointed out that Houlihan damaged her reputation while also throwing a local business under the bus with her unsubstantiated excuse.

"Her credibility is out the window," McPeak said. "They didn't believe it, they saw through it.

"Then you now take a business which really and truly had nothing to do with this entire story . . . now you're putting their business on the line. You're jeopardizing them making money and being able to take care of their family.""""...................................................

Yeah sure just try to weasel your way out. That will work. Sure.

Why do I care what a bunch of baskeball/WNBA people care about Olympic drug testing? They literally know nothing about the science of it all.

And can we stop making this a racial issue. Ajee Wilson and Jarrion Lawson - both got off with tainyed food excuses.

And remember when Serena Williams complained about WADA testing, I don't remember the press crucifying her. I remember them defending her.

Shelby- You're a clean athlete, you're drug tested every couple weeks, you're maybe the fastest 1500 meter runner in the world this year and we're suppose to believe that you would risk your career and eat an unknown meat substance from a food truck knowing the situation with tainted meat? A clean athlete would be obsessive about what they put in their body, a dirty athlete would need an excuse.

runlikehellfloyd wrote:

The only question that needs to be asked is:

Was the meat from the taco truck tested for nandrolone?

If yes and the result was positive: remove ban, because unintentional ingestion is plausible

If yes and the result was negative: keep ban as there is no evidence of unintentional ingestion

If the meat was NOT tested, keep ban as there is no evidence of unintentional ingestion.

Given the current rules. I should have put that in there. I assume they did test the food and nothing came of it.

But Ajee and Jarrion didn't produce any of that themselves. To be honest, I don't get why Ajee and Jarrion got off. I'd like Tygart to explain that to me. Well I get why Jarrion got off. IF the head o the lab is providing false testimony, I'm letting you off.

rojo wrote:

Burrito man wrote:

When Jerry Schumacher said he had never heard of Nandrolone, I knew she doped.

Case closed.

I still don't get why you need to know what's on the WADA list if you are'nt doping your athletes.

Maybe because you get paid as a coach for professional athletes (who are also well paid, btw) and so it's your job to make sure they don't put banned substances into their body?

rojo wrote:

Burrito man wrote:

When Jerry Schumacher said he had never heard of Nandrolone, I knew she doped.

Case closed.

I know a lot of people feel this about that one thing. I DO NOT AGREE . WHY? I didn't know what it is. If somsone said to me, what is nandrolone before this? I would say, "I have no idea. A steroid?"

I still don't get why you need to know what's on the WADA list if you are'nt doping your athletes. At Cornell, the kids ate food. If someone got sick or something and got a prescription, then we'd look up whatever med they were on.

It's inconceivable that Schumacher didn't know what Nandrolone is. It's not some obscure new wave substance. It's a substance that has consistently come up over decades of drug testing.

The BTC wants us to believe that Schumacher and Houlihan didn't know what Nandrolone is yet at the same time posit the point that no one would be stupid enough to ingest Nandrolone because it is easily detectable.

Are you, your brother and the other apologists for this site really this dense?

Would you rather Rojo have written the piece or not? It's not perfect, but I think it adds much to the conversation and I enjoyed reading it.

rojo wrote:

runlikehellfloyd wrote:

The only question that needs to be asked is:

Was the meat from the taco truck tested for nandrolone?

If yes and the result was positive: remove ban, because unintentional ingestion is plausible

If yes and the result was negative: keep ban as there is no evidence of unintentional ingestion

If the meat was NOT tested, keep ban as there is no evidence of unintentional ingestion.

Given the current rules. I should have put that in there. I assume they did test the food and nothing came of it.

But Ajee and Jarrion didn't produce any of that themselves. To be honest, I don't get why Ajee and Jarrion got off. I'd like Tygart to explain that to me. Well I get why Jarrion got off. IF the head o the lab is providing false testimony, I'm letting you off.

I really don't think Ajee was/is clean. She got popped too. She was just able to connect the dots better on her "excuse."

rojo wrote:

Burrito man wrote:

When Jerry Schumacher said he had never heard of Nandrolone, I knew she doped.

Case closed.

I know a lot of people feel this about that one thing. I DO NOT AGREE . WHY? I didn't know what it is. If somsone said to me, what is nandrolone before this? I would say, "I have no idea. A steroid?"

I still don't get why you need to know what's on the WADA list if you are'nt doping your athletes. At Cornell, the kids ate food. If someone got sick or something and got a prescription, then we'd look up whatever med they were on.

In that case, do you think Schumacher even knows what EPO is?

David492 wrote:

Would you rather Rojo have written the piece or not? It's not perfect, but I think it adds much to the conversation and I enjoyed reading it.

Good for you. I wasn't commenting on the article itself just on one of his posts.

jda9ball wrote:

It has been confirmed she had taken it orally....

Where?!?! Where was it confirmed???

TTH wrote:

David492 wrote:

Would you rather Rojo have written the piece or not? It's not perfect, but I think it adds much to the conversation and I enjoyed reading it.

Good for you. I wasn't commenting on the article itself just on one of his posts.

@TTH Apologies. I actually meant to post that in the separate short thread specifically complaining about the writing involved in that piece. I wasn't posting it in response to your post.