Is Nike Still Sponsoring Shelby Houlihan?

rekrunner wrote:

But I'm not arguing with the experts.

LOL - but actually I didn't say you are arguing "with" them:

casual obsever wrote:

the AIU experts understand this a lot better than you

You just pretend they are wrong/biased/"experts"/"so-called experts" etc., whether it's Dr. Ayotte or Dr. McClone or Dr. Ashenden or Dr. Parisotto or Dr. Schumacher or Dr. Garnier or Dr. Pielke Jr. or Dr. Pope...

rekrunner wrote:

No doubt the AIU experts have more expertise in their respective domains, but not so sure about the bias, being hired as experts for the prosecution.

LOL

rekrunner wrote:

the AIU experts would convince you that that exception statistically cannot exist.

LOL

rekrunner wrote:

“experts”

LOL

rekrunner wrote:I take protecting clean athletes seriously, and it is clear that the process isn't refined enough to distinguish genuine real-world intentional doping, from presumed intentional ADRVs.

LOL

But, if you were really serious about that (and delusional enough to think you would achieve a Wada code change through arguing on letsrun), you would:

- not use your troll handle to try "protecting clean athletes"

- not use the doper Houlihan case to argue that "the process isn't refined enough"

- not engage in all your ad hominem obfuscations

- not use your "colourful language"

@casual observer: "obfuscation" seems to be the name of the game here. It's what Salazar's PR team did, and it's certainly what Shelby's team has done.

Rekrunner, Keith, and Twoggle (see references below) all aim to provoke doubt through obfuscation and confusion. It just so happens Rekrunner does a little ad hominem obfuscation too, like you said.

https://keithmoulton.com/

https://twoggle.github.io/DopingFiles/Article.html#Part1

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But I'm not arguing with the experts.

LOL - but actually I didn't say you are arguing "with" them:

casual obsever wrote:

the AIU experts understand this a lot better than you

You just pretend they are wrong/biased/"experts"/"so-called experts" etc., whether it's Dr. Ayotte or Dr. McClone or Dr. Ashenden or Dr. Parisotto or Dr. Schumacher or Dr. Garnier or Dr. Pielke Jr. or Dr. Pope...

As I said, I’m arguing with the likes of you, and these experts also “understand this a lot better than you”. When I argue with you, it is often about what you said, rather than the expert.

That’s a lot of names and a lot of different situations and a lot of “appeal to authority”, but you are simply wrong that it is me pretending anything. I am often just a messenger relaying what these same experts, or other experts have said. And I guess it was Coe who called Ashenden and Parisotto “so-called” experts. If I ever said “so-called”, and I’m not sure I ever did, I guess it is me relaying again what others who know better have said.

In the case of elite performance estimates from “anti-doping experts” not known to be “elite performance experts”, it is the very experts themselves who caution against projecting any of their performance conclusions onto elite athletes, and rightly so.

It is also other “experts” in meta-studies who tell us that “anti-doping experts” collectively over the past few decades have tended to over-estimate performance benefits of doping.

In the case of prevalence estimates from anonymous surveys, it is again the same experts who told me that numbers could be greatly biased and greatly inflated, and that further refinement is needed.

In the case of Prof. Ayotte, recall another CAS Panel reversed the decision of Lawson because this “AIU expert” gave misleading testimony about results from her lab.

When it comes to criticism of the WADA process and fairness to athletes, I rely again on another expert, USADA Chief Travis Tygart. Or other experts like Prof. Erik Boye.

And finally, it was the CAS who told me their ultimate findings are based on two presumptions.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:I take protecting clean athletes seriously, and it is clear that the process isn't refined enough to distinguish genuine real-world intentional doping, from presumed intentional ADRVs.

LOL

But, if you were really serious about that (and delusional enough to think you would achieve a Wada code change through arguing on letsrun), you would:

- not use your troll handle to try "protecting clean athletes"

- not use the doper Houlihan case to argue that "the process isn't refined enough"

- not engage in all your ad hominem obfuscations

- not use your "colourful language"

I guess for achieving change, I rely on and support the efforts of the likes of Tygart. My purpose here is to discuss, and often share half the facts that are often ignored or overlooked.

I don’t ever troll, so not sure what “troll handle” can possibly mean.

Houlihan is about as clear an illustration of the difficulty of proving “not intentional” as there can be.

Besides Houlihan I have repeatedly used the case of Simon Getzmann to show how much athletes lose, even when they win their case. He successfully proved no intention and no negligence on his part, at great cost in time and money and reputation, and you can still call him a “doper” with one-strike against him, who served a 1-year suspension.

Once “presence” is confirmed, the system is heavily stacked against the athlete.

I don’t obfuscate, and strive to avoid ad hominem, focusing on criticizing content, so not sure what “ad hominem obfuscation”, can possibly mean.

Accusing me of “trolling” and “obfuscating” is your own veiled ad hominem and obfuscation.

“Colourful language”? I’m also stumped as to what this is supposed to mean.

FartKing69 wrote:

@casual observer: "obfuscation" seems to be the name of the game here. It's what Salazar's PR team did, and it's certainly what Shelby's team has done.

Rekrunner, Keith, and Twoggle (see references below) all aim to provoke doubt through obfuscation and confusion. It just so happens Rekrunner does a little ad hominem obfuscation too, like you said.

LOL. “obfuscation”, “ad hominem”.

I didn’t do as much resource gathering as “moulton” and “twoggle”, but much of the doubt I expressed is justified by clear information in the CAS report, and in the WADA code, and in some cases, clear general information from USADA Chief Tygart and the SportsIntegrityInitiative about the impact of 2015 rule changes.

None of this is obfuscated, but all rather clearly written.

Even if you don’t agree with all of “twoggle”’s editorial opinion, he did a pretty decent job of explaining exactly where the dispute was, and pointing to other resources to help the reader navigate and better understand the issues.

“moulton”’s main value added was information about pigs and castration practices that supplement Prof McClone statements in the CAS report.

rekrunner wrote:

I don’t obfuscate, and strive to avoid ad hominem, focusing on criticizing content, so not sure what “ad hominem obfuscation”, can possibly mean.

...

“Colourful language”? I’m also stumped as to what this is supposed to mean.

" focusing on criticizing content "? LOL

Your recent expressions include, for example:

bad faith

wishful thinking

batshi$ crazy

Mr. Half-of-the-Facts

tabloid gossip

imagination

illusion

pitch forks

mob

witch hunt

only you

railroaded

"fans"

"experts"

You just love to provoke and attack to deflect from the many drug cheats and their coaches and pharmacists, and then complain bitterly when someone points out your trolling. That discussion in this thread for example was quite civil, until you started with your little provocations.

Other little obfuscation "tricks" from you, all about banned doper Houlihan:

- appeal to authority

- just eating USDA-approved meals...

- just one soy-fed boar...

- just one burrito with nandrolone

- her story is of course credible

- CAS said it was possible

- innocent athletes get railroaded

- the source of the nandrolone wasn't proven

- ...

This very discussion is itself one of many diversions, as you are provoking me to defend myself, rather than addressing the original content about Nike. In the past, this would go on for many pages, while the original point remains unrebutted and forgotten.

I'm not the originator of "batshi$ crazy", but it's possible I repeated someone else who said it in a thread. I tend to put others' expressions in quotes.

Many of my "recent expressions" in your list, were criticisms of the content -- "attacking" what was said, rather than who said it. "half-the-facts" could be considered ad-hominem, but then it is usually accompanied by missing facts.

What I love to do regarding the "many drug cheats and their coaches and pharmacists" is to separate fact from fiction, separate knowledge from speculation and allegation, point out exaggerations, and supplement the facts with more facts that are often dowplayed, overlooked, or ignored. Rather than addressing my statements on their merits, the statements often get distorted and restated, in order to be ridiculed, and I am accused of bias and trolling and obfuscation and diversion. If I correct any mis-statement by saying the jay-walker did not commit murder, this should not be understood as denying jay-walking, but clarifying the reality that one unlawful act is not interchangeable with other unlawful acts. The only proper response is to disprove it and show it really was murder, or concede it was not. It seems improper to cloud the nuance and say "convicted law-breaker", while calling me a "law denier".

Your list of "little obfuscation tricks" all look rather clear and on point, and factual, but I welcome anyone and everyone who can disprove any of them. Otherwise, they are self-evident, or directly come from or follow from the CAS report, or from domain experts like Tygart. For example, the CAS did not rule on credibility or plausibility, except to say Houlihan was a credible witness. That is fact, or if not, easily falsifiable. When an AIU expert guesstimates a less than 1 in 10,000 chance, and there are 121 million opportunities each year, that still leaves a pool of as many as 12,100 cryptorchid pigs per year, getting by the USDA inspectors and to the market. That is basic mathematics. Factor in all these other variables, and throw in a few more verified facts, some present and some not present in the report, and adjust the likelihoods accordingly, and add margins for uncertainty, and we just need one pig in the wrong place at the wrong time. All very possible and plausible and credible, even if improbable.

Was it civil? I see a lot of hostility directed towards Shelby and Nike in this thread, and many others before it, which prompted the question.

Your outrage direct towards me is just deflecting from the question to I posed to you and everyone else: "Is there anything here that shows Nike is involved in anything related to doping?"

As I said, everyone loves to hate Nike, but is there any genuine justification directly connected to doping or doping bans? I only received one answer: Nike was aware of an experiment on persons not subject to WADA. The hate started long before that.

jecht wrote:

not trying to pile on wrote:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CVlg880hc8X/

ok not trying to pile on (although-- come on, she's serving a doping ban) but does anyone have the actual answer to this?

It doesn't look like she's at Nike HQ but how does she have the time to train full time without being sponsored as she says she plans to do?

Is she employed there now? what's the 411?

Being connected to the insular running world, even with a ban, probably means a lifetime employment guarantee with Nike.

So basically the sport just does not want to really punish the dopers. The fight against doping seems completely futile; it's almost like it's some sort of marketing image to make the sport appear wholesome and clean but the reality is that the governing bodies just don't care. Right now, it would be better to allow doping to be open and legal as it would be less hypocritical of the sport and it would not really change the current state of affairs. The only other way to fight doping could be outside intervention from governments by imposing monster fines on race organizers or other big corporations for sponsoring doping athletes.

sport quality control needed wrote:

So basically the sport just does not want to really punish the dopers. The fight against doping seems completely futile; it's almost like it's some sort of marketing image to make the sport appear wholesome and clean but the reality is that the governing bodies just don't care. Right now, it would be better to allow doping to be open and legal as it would be less hypocritical of the sport and it would not really change the current state of affairs. The only other way to fight doping could be outside intervention from governments by imposing monster fines on race organizers or other big corporations for sponsoring doping athletes.

WTH are you talking about?

"jecht" gave a "probably" response which looks he probably made up.

Nike is not "the sport", nor a "governing body".

Who here thinks that sponsorship from Nike is "almost like it's some sort of marketing image to make the sport appear wholesome and clean"?

In this case, the relevant "governing bodies" cared enough in the "fight against doping" to ban the athlete for 4 years.

LOL – you are playing opposite day again. Recall that you were the one who started provoking, and now you are accusing me for pointing out your trolling?

Your first, completely unprovoked, post in the thread started with ad hominem as per your usual deflection method - trying to provoke the original poster to defend themself:

Your first comment to my post here in this thread, completely unprovoked, started with ad hominem as per your usual deflection method - trying to provoke me to defend myself (for bringing up facts you don't like!):

Of course you provided zero arguments in that post, neither for “hate”, nor for “tabloid gossip”, you just provoked, and asked three obfuscating questions (that have long been answered), just because you couldn’t argue against any of the cited facts.

And then you have the nerves to proclaim:

At least you try to be funny, I give you that.

rekrunner wrote:

WTH are you talking about?

And another provocation, completely unprovoked. Troll.

It’s not opposite day — you are still talking about me, which is clearly not anyone’s point.

Judging from your post, I have to say you don’t really know what “ad hominem” means, or “trolling” for that matter. Maybe even “provoking”.

To be generous, the original poster was only provoked to defend his statements. My issues can be found in the rest of the post.

I have/had no problem with the facts in your links. I’m just wondering if there was a point bringing all these disjoint facts together.

I don’t disagree with the cited facts, so I wouldn’t argue against them. My issue can be found in the questions I raised.

I don’t feel any need to provide any arguments when I say “People seem …” and “this looks like …”. This is clearly my personal impression and opinion. You are free to disagree, and/or hold a different impression/opinion.

I’m not sure these question have ever been asked or answered before, but until addressed and disproven, I will presume the answers were no, yes, and yes.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

WTH are you talking about?

And another provocation, completely unprovoked. Troll.

Provocation?

It looks like you are just going through the motions.

rekrunner wrote:

Judging from your post, I have to say you don’t really know what “ad hominem” means, or “trolling” for that matter. Maybe even “provoking”.

This, coming from rekrunner's little tippy tappy fingers, is probably the funniest, least self-aware thing I've ever seen posted on this site. Move aside Rojo, the new king of self-parody is here, and his name is rekrunner.

In answer to the initial question: is Shelby Houlihan still sponsored by Nike?

The answer is no.

She is not. They would probably re sign her when her ban is up though.

She has got a job, and is also privately trying to fundraise for both her legal fees and cost of training.

That's what I have heard reliably enough.

Below is what I know based on past banning situations with USATF.

Per WADA rules, she is not/cannot train with the women on BTC. She can still be coached by Schumacher, or any pro coach for that matter, but must pay for that coaching as any old recreational runner would pay for private coaching. She cannot get USATF or BTC affiliated physio, or strength training unless she pays for it.

And FYI, your coach can't be like "Yeah, okay, pay me $100 a year to coach you." It must be what WADA and USATF agree is "fair market rate for a private coach." So she if she wants to be coached by Schumacher, Flanagan, or whomever in the interim, she is going to be forking out thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars a year.

Houlihan will continue to be tested by USADA and WADA during this period too, unless she chooses to retire.

And all that is v expensive for athletes, and most don't bother/can't afford to keep training at the same level as before. She probably made good money as an athlete, maybe has a property or two she can get a second mortgage on, or maybe sell, or rent out or whatever. Maybe she can get some private donors or friends to help her out.

Clearly she is still training right now. How well she is doing in terms of fitness, mental health, and financial health come 2023, 2024 ish, is another question.

swooshswoop wrote:

In answer to the initial question: is Shelby Houlihan still sponsored by Nike?

The answer is no.

No? She is still - over five months after the final verdict - listed here as a member of the BTC Pros:

I have sometimes wondered if Houlihan sabotaged herself by taking nandrolone. The competitive pressure and build-up to the Olympics became to great, then plays the victim of a tainted burrito.

casual obsever wrote:

swooshswoop wrote:

In answer to the initial question: is Shelby Houlihan still sponsored by Nike?

The answer is no.

No? She is still - over five months after the final verdict - listed here as a member of the BTC Pros:

Being on the BTC website doesn't mean you're sponsored by Nike. Jorgensen was sponsored straight up by another sports wear company last year as she didn't have a contract with Nike but was still on the team. Emily Infeld is also still on there and she isn't with them anymore either.

But given the loyalty shown by Flanagan and Schumacher, I could see them leaving her up there indefinitely... which is kinda sad but whatever. Doesn't mean she's actually getting $$ from the swoosh.