Runner10287 wrote:
quote post wrote:
Aren’t you, though?
He is and shouldn't be ashamed by it. Look at Carl Nassib and be honest and open with what you are Rojo.
Right now judgment at all. We’d all support him a lot more if he was more open about who he was
Alexi Santana wrote:
I’ll even share an example. I expect you’ve also heard from credible sources that Hobbs Kessler is going pro this week and also likely which company he’s signing with. That’d be a great rumor mill story to share
I guess you lived up to this, so nevermind…
burritogate wrote:
sunflower wrote:
I'm glad we're talking about this. Good job.
I don't agree with this one though.
"When LetsRun.com’s Jonathan Gault called you a few weeks ago and told you we’d heard from multiple sources that Shelby had tested positive, why did you tell him that you hadn’t heard that and if she tested positive, you thought you would have heard something? Were you lying to Jonathan or did Shelby really keep you out of the loop? "
Do you really expect an agent to tell you the truth in this situation. It's not really lying if it's part of their job to protect their client. That's like asking someone on trial if they did something wrong and expecting them to tell the truth. It's not on the agent to come clean just because you caught wind of a rumor and asked them a question.
Assuming the agent knew about the positive test, they could have made a plan to handle the situation more tactfully than “lie to the sport’s main beat reporter who already has multiple sources telling him the truth.”
I’m sure LRC won’t disclose how these things normally go down, but there’s a spectrum of ways to interact with a journalist other than lying. Even a vague non-denial denial (“To my knowledge, neither USADA or the AIU has ever announced a sanction against Shelby Houlihan.”) would have served their client better than lying.
Of course, it’s possible that the agent simply isn’t very good at representing high profile clients from a public relations standpoint. Track agents aren’t exactly renowned for their great professionalism.
Then there’s the other option: the agent was telling the truth and genuinely didn’t know. They could have genuinely been surprised by the call, assuming they’d hear if their star client was facing a suspension. Of course, this scenario is not one that reflects well on Houlihan’s innocence.
Keep in mind: BTC was in fact actively lying about Houlihan’s situation to both the public and much of the team. Lots of folks were suspicious about Houlihan’s lack of racing in 2021 and many asked BTC about it. They denied there was any issue and claimed Houlihan’s training plan was somehow just miraculously different than the rest of the team. Nothing to see here; Shelby will run at the Trials. No wonder multiple sources came forward to Gault when they heard the truth.
Now, keeping in mind that BTC publicly lied about Houlihan’s status and multiple sources who knew the truth talked to Gault, which explanation for the agent’s answer to Gault seems more likely?
I believe that's known as circumstantial evidence. One thing is true (not handling honesty and the press well) but that doesn't prove guilt
"After wading through pages here and listening to multiple podcasts, I don't understand the testing protocols, the oral vs injection argument, the pig offal defense, or the reasons why the appeal was rejected. I've read lots of *opinions* but I still don't know any facts, other than she had a PED in her system and her appeal failed."
"I tend to look to Occams Razor for answers."(quote)
Occams Razor is not an argument where ignorance provides the correct answer.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I can see the "pork" excuse growing under your expert ministrations. The fact is she has been convicted of doping - the rest is pedantry, as hard as you find that swallow. If she had had the same aversion to nandrolone as you do to uncomfortable truths we wouldn't be discussing any of this.
If we could only stick to facts and truths ...
Yes, if only you could.
Nothing taco wrote:
Burrito Picante wrote:
The #1 question Track and Field needs to ask itself is:
-Is drug testing athletes worth it?
The answer is no.
There’s a major PR problem when the major assumption is even with drug testing every athlete dopes, everyone microdoses, I saw so and so at the taco truck earlier, yada, yada, yada.
As a spectator it takes away from the enjoyment of watching athletes do some superhuman stuff.
Go down to your local track and run the straight away as fast as you can. These athletes are doing faster than that pace for 25 laps without stopping!
I just want to enjoy these people racing and competing at the highest levels. I don’t care if they like their burrito grande and their salsa muy picante!
TLDR: Drug testing takes the fun out of athletics. Stop drug testing and let’s see some amazing stuff!
Bad idea. Advocating for no drug testing is essentially advocating for a complete drug binge free-for-all. Do you really think athletes would just continue with the same kind of doping they are currently doing (micro-dosing, taking only as much as can be cleared out of their system in a relatively short time)? Not a chance. The sport would become unrecognizable. I mean, c'mon. If you are a track and field athlete, and all of a sudden doping is legalized, what are you going to do if you want to stay competitive? You're going to take all the EPO, testosterone, HGH, stimulants, and whatever else you can get your hands on. Some would undoubtedly die. Remember how cycling put the 50% hematocrit limit on cyclists? That was their way of saying, we don't have a test to prove you're using EPO, but we know you are, so let's make sure you at least don't kill yourself, okay?
Also, how do you get to be a sponsored athlete? For most (in the US at least), they do it by being an outstanding college athlete. So drugs would inevitably take over the college scene. How do you get a college scholarship? By being really good in H.S. Drugs would take over that scene, too. Great - a PED arms race on the H.S. track scene!
Bottom line: doing away with testing for PEDs is a bad idea.
Also: how many parents would let their kids start doing sports where it was allowed to take steroids, amphetamine etc?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
In all that expert analysis above we have had 'insights' into a variety of matters, mostly procedural, but are no closer to knowing whether or not the writer thinks Houlihan was guilty. That is a determination he must assiduously avoid - even if CAS hasn't shied away from it.
I laid out pretty much all my thoughts on the topic, including what Houlihan is guilty of in the context of the AIU charges, the WADA code, the issues before the CAS, and the CAS findings and decision.
Pedantic explanations of process don't qualify as "thoughts". A "thought" that doesn't appear to have occurred to you is that Houlihan is a proven doper.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Pedantic explanations of process don't qualify as "thoughts". A "thought" that doesn't appear to have occurred to you is that Houlihan is a proven doper.
Again -- that was in there. Did you read it?
How does the Mexican Olympic team ever pass drug tests as their food trucks are definitely authentic?
Armstronglivs wrote:
"After wading through pages here and listening to multiple podcasts, I don't understand the testing protocols, the oral vs injection argument, the pig offal defense, or the reasons why the appeal was rejected. I've read lots of *opinions* but I still don't know any facts, other than she had a PED in her system and her appeal failed."
"I tend to look to Occams Razor for answers."(quote)
Occams Razor is not an argument where ignorance provides the correct answer.
poast of the day.
Rick Sanchez wrote:
Now that she's suspected of testing positive, is she still in the testing pool? Or could she use the next four years to eat as many pork burritos as humanly possible and train like a beast and come back world class?
My understanding is that unless she retires from running she stays in the testing pool.
Another giver of +1 wrote:
Rick Sanchez wrote:
Now that she's suspected of testing positive, is she still in the testing pool? Or could she use the next four years to eat as many pork burritos as humanly possible and train like a beast and come back world class?
My understanding is that unless she retires from running she stays in the testing pool.
By the way, she isn't suspected of testing positive, she did, lost her appeal and was banned from the sport for 4 years.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
I still don’t get why the Brojos and Gault seem to have their head in the sand that Nandrolone may have been in a tainted supplement/PED? Victor Conte asserted as much as a leading possibility for Nandrolone busts because everyone agrees it would take a moron to use.
This.
I think the only way people get caught is tainted PED. They are trying to microdose a different PED because they know how to beat the system, keep their T:E levels and other markers just under the inflated line, and never get caught. As long as you have a "team physician" checking you out then you are good to go.
Toothpaste didn't fly in the 90s. A burrito isn't going to fly today.
Alan
Runner10287 wrote:
John_James_413 wrote:
Also trying to blame this on a mexican food truck is EXTREMELY DISRESPECTFUL to Mexico.
That's some bull crap!
I don't think the Mexicans are all that upset over this.
Wait I heard that Swedish food trucks are just as bad.
Is she 100 percent positive that this wasn't a Swedish food truck? Swedish food trucks have that reputation don't they?
Notice how she used the word Mexican because she wanted to imply cheap. Yet there are tons of really really decent Mexican businesses all over the world.
Then she uses the word food truck to imply cheap as well. Yet there are tons and tons of really good Mexican food trucks everywhere.
Damn that's so rude to put it like she did. Trying to make fun of Mexicans.
What's her deal?
Did she think that if she would have said it was a cheap French food truck selling cheap food that nobody would have believed her so she had to use the word Mexican in it?
Wow really?
Apparently tons of people haven't been keeping up with current events but if you haven't noticed the North American continent is connected to South America and Central America through a place called " Mexico"
And then guess what's North of the USA? Canada is....
I mean all you have to do is look at a map to figure that out.
That's so rude to talk about Mexico in that form. She really needs to start respecting Mexico way more than this.
There shouldn't even be a border between the USA and mexico and another border between Canada and the USA. It should all be connected as one country.
casual obsever wrote:
Of course she will keep her American Records and all other ill-gotten gains. That's one of the big reasons why so many cheat to improve: the rewards are large, the risk of getting caught is tiny, and even if you get caught, all prior achievements will officially stay yours, including the cash.
Once more people realize that Houlihan lied about her doping, we can turn to the more interesting questions.
For example:
1) When insiders like Schumacher or Schweizer etc. support her stupid lie (with more lies!), is that proof they were part of the doping?
2) Wouldn't it be better for BTC if they kicked the drug cheat out instead of supporting her, IF she acted alone?
3) Why did Houlihan not reveal the truth, which would have significantly reduced her ban (see Gay)?
Most likely scenario imho: they were all in on it, and chose this scenario, hoping that all the PR would somehow keep BTC running, and Shelby's reputation not completely ruined.
Yeah well what's the solution to the cash problem then for caught cheaters? Heavier and heavier fines?
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.
Yeah not going to happen.
She needs to listen to ROJO.
PROVE TO US THAT YOU'RE NATURAL.
She should have PLENTY of time to go out there on the track today and start training again and get TESTED every single day or every single week or whatever she needs to do to prove to us all that she's legit.
PROVE IT TO US.
BOTTOMLINE>
I'm still going with she doesn't break 4:25 if she does the ROJO.
thatwaseasy wrote:
It might seem strange that Houlihan would go for the convoluted burrito defense over a more plausible tainted supplement defense, but there's a pretty straightforward explanation:
When you're drug tested, athletes have to disclose the supplements they're taking. The testers are supposed to take this into account when conducting their analysis.
If Houlihan ingested nandrolone from a tainted supplement that she didn't disclose, then her best case scenario is trading a PED suspension for a tampering suspension.
Doesn't matter.
Bottomline now is she's banned...
Go out there and do the ROJO test.
Prove it.
Prove her fitness.
Prove it that she's the athlete she says she is.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The principle here is "innocent until proven guilty", and not commenting on on-going cases is a principle that should cause the least reputational harm to innocent athletes.(quote).
The principle in doping is "guilty until proven innocent" - that is how it works. It isn't an "ongoing case", it is a final decision by CAS. You can choose to comment on it - but you won't, because that would mean addressing a judicial determination of guilt - and you would never acknowledge that the athlete in question has doped. The "least reputational harm to innocent athletes" is that they don't dope. Some - as we see - do.
1) Houlihan's "story" is not incompatible with the findings of the AIU and CAS.(quote)
Yes it is - otherwise they would not have found against her.
In Article 2.1 and 2.2 "it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation". (quote)
In a hundred or more threads I have never seen anyone point out this astonishing fact, that it makes no difference if Houlihan didn't intend to dope.
4) Studies show that eating the wrong pork can raise levels above the WADA threshold "naturally".(quote)
Not to the levels found in Houlihan, which is why CAS rejected this argument. It turns out it wasn't pork anyway. Wrong menu.
.. every athlete should be on notice, that seemingly normal behavior can be perceived as "significantly risky" in a WADA/CAS context, and should not be "manifestly disregarded".(quote)
Seemingly normal behaviour is clearly significantly risky, because so many athletes seem to be eating contaminated burritos. Of course the greater risk is simply to ingest nandrolone, like she did.
"Strict liability" may sound like a good idea for catching the worst offenders, but it does place a rather high burden on the athlete, not only to defend against anti-doping charges after an AAF, but for every decision that they make both in and out of competition, for keeping logs and receipts and other evidence that may be handy in a hearing, for things that would be ordinary behavior for non-athletes.
It is so hard for them to keep illegal substances out of their bodies.
-----‐-------
In all that expert analysis above we have had 'insights' into a variety of matters, mostly procedural, but are no closer to knowing whether or not the writer thinks Houlihan was guilty. That is a determination he must assiduously avoid - even if CAS hasn't shied away from it.[/quote]
How long until they officially erase her American Record of 3:54?
Now that she's been officially banned?
Shouldn't the record be erased at once?
casual obsever wrote:
JBaller33 wrote:
2nd is Shannon Rowburry, of Nike Oregon Project at the height of their misdeeds. There have never been any rumors about her doping, but the association is suspicious and she never spoke about against it like many of her teammates did.
3rd is convicted drug cheat Mary Decker. Enough said.
4th is Jenny.
A sad list indeed. As for Jenny, she was a patient of the infamous Dr. Brown, who is currently banned for three anti-doping rule violations. She also admitted to having missed an OOC test, that the non-compliant USADA failed to flag.
Let's not forget the 5000 m AR:
1: Houlihan, banned drug cheat
2: Schweizer, banned drug cheat Houlihan's teammate and supporter
3: Rowbury coached by banned drug cheat Salazar
4: Huddle
5: Flanagan, banned drug cheat's coach and supporter
6: Jacobs, banned drug cheat
7: Cranny, banned drug cheat Houlihan's teammate and supporter
Sounds so scammy.
fisky wrote:
runlikehellfloyd wrote:
The only question that needs to be asked is:
Was the meat from the taco truck tested for nandrolone?
The problem with this question is that meat is bought in batches and is perishable. You would have to test that particular batch.
That particular batch would be consumed that day or no later than the next couple of days.
Why? For what?
DECA doesn't get into meat. And especially at the dose of what she tested positive for.