pupil3142 wrote:
fisky wrote:
1) Coach claims to have never heard of nandrolone... therefore, guilty. All other data is ignored. I would argue that the coach could have been lying for emphasis. People do it all the time. I wouldn't automatically assume guilt based on this.
In a matter where trust and integrity is at stake the senior responsible people lie all the time for emphasis?
Comedy gold.
Just doesn't look good when you pretend you don't know yet you know.
This is Jim Kiler wrote:
They had six months to sort this out, and were not able to do so. SH is guilty. Full stop.
Rachel Maddow needs to cover this entire story for one of her shows.
I need to see a Maddow roasting of this entire situation.
John_James_413 wrote:
fisky wrote:
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.
We just do not know and the meat argument was stated as only being a possibility.
Dr Yuengling wrote:
fisky wrote:
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.
So get a sample from each batch for a month or so and test them all. Otherwise I’m supposed to believe that one time and one time only some contaminated pig found it’s way there?
Also on a side note I haven't even got into the physical symptom aspect of it.
I mean if I really wanted to I could go all out on this situation and list about 5 to 8 visible symptoms that I see within Houlians pictures over the past few years.
I'm not even roasting at full capacity right now. I'm only roasting her at like 21 percent of my absolute maximum roasting capacity level since she's American and not Russian.
Ok7272 wrote:
burritogate wrote:
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
Sure, but Houlihan is not being criminally prosecuted here. The only mechanism of “proving guilt” here is that the AIU tested her urine for a prohibited substance and found a prohibited substance.
It’s Houlihan who wants us to accept circumstantial evidence (i.e. “I tested positive because of a pork burrito, even though I ordered a beef burrito, and couldn’t prove via chemical analysis that the pork at this particular food truck contained nandrolone. Anyway, just trust me on this.”).
Rememberer wrote:
Rojo going to bat for whitey US doper... Coleman had the opposite treatment... hmmmm...
What are you even talking about? Read about what ROJO said about the situation.
Your comment doesn't even make any sense.
Rememberer wrote:
Rojo going to bat for whitey US doper... Coleman had the opposite treatment... hmmmm...
Meaning. Take the time to read each and every post on this thread before posting.
Then read everything about the question part.
Then after you have done your studying come back to the comment section and make a post.
Don't just browse a thread for like a second and automatically get an idea in your head that's wrong.
Rememberer wrote:
Rojo going to bat for whitey US doper... Coleman had the opposite treatment... hmmmm...
Plus everyone can already see through your scam.
So nice try though.
I mean, C- for effort I guess? Good effort. At least you're trying.
runlikehellfloyd wrote:
rojo wrote:
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.
Yeah anyone who's anyone within the track and field " field" knows this.
Rememberer wrote:
Rojo going to bat for whitey US doper... Coleman had the opposite treatment... hmmmm...
I agree 100%
LRC’s immediate gut reaction was “but it just FEELS like she’s innocent!!!”
Professional_amateur wrote:
rojo wrote:
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?
I mean everyone has access to wiki or something. All the coach had to do before answering the question was go on his phone on wiki look up DECA or nandralone and then get a little bit of info about it and then answer the question.
Just seems scammy when you automatically answer the question with the dumb look on your face and confusion as to what this powerful steroid is.
That steroid is on pace with like Tren. Do you know what Tren is? Tren does the same thing to powerlifters within the steroid infested powerlifting community.
I went to the gym yesterday and all I saw was steroid and Tren users everywhere.
Get this stupid just because your hero Arnold Schwarz did steroids means you can too thing out of your head.
Do you know what Arnold is? He's a fake. He's a loser. Only losers take steroids. Everything Arnold has accomplished will be deleted and erased.
He's not a role model. Get the facts straight.
Ernest wrote:
Just lucky it wasn't Chinese Food? Or they might have been "EXTREMELY DISRESPECTFUL" to over a billion folks from a hostile nuclear-armed country?
Blaming a style of cuisine isn't blaming people.
John_James_413 wrote:
Also trying to blame this on a mexican food truck is EXTREMELY DISRESPECTFUL to Mexico.
That's some bull crap!
Yeah it kind of is when it's put into the meaning of which Houlihan is trying to paint it as...
JBaller33 wrote:
rojo wrote:
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."
The greatest part about this is sooner or later people are going to realize that NOBODY CARES ABOUT HARD WORK.
NOBODY cares about how many reps you did in your set.
WOW you did 15 reps? Wow so special.
Nobody cares how many hours per day you worked out.
Nobody cares how many workouts you did per week.
Nobody cares what you had to go through. Wow you went through alot of pain in your workout?
WOW you're so special.
Nobody cares about any of that. The moment you choose to disenfranchise other naturals or basically put naturals out of business is the moment that you effectively put yourself into the disease world. Because that's what steroids are. They are a disease.
I know all about this. You know why? I've been put out of business by steroid using powerlifters and steroid using body builders. That's why.
So yeah when you choose to do that then yeah you deserve every single day of that ban.
Everyone works hard. Nobody cares about hard work.
The pregnancy possibility is one thing that's been somewhat overlooked.
Look at what happens to nandrolone levels when a woman gets pregnant and the level they reach.
Look at what proportion of pregnancies are never known about by the mother - a woman gets pregnant and miscarries in the early weeks of pregnancy without ever knowing. It's a high percentage.
hamsters wrote:
The pregnancy possibility is one thing that's been somewhat overlooked.
Look at what happens to nandrolone levels when a woman gets pregnant and the level they reach.
Look at what proportion of pregnancies are never known about by the mother - a woman gets pregnant and miscarries in the early weeks of pregnancy without ever knowing. It's a high percentage.
The very first thing AIU does when evaluating a urine sample on a female athlete is run a pregnancy test.
rekrunner wrote:
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?
It's not your "thought"; it's CAS's decision. Let's try an experiment to see if you are capable of independent thought and not merely given to parroting the views and findings of others: based on what you understand of the case, are you satisfied that CAS came to the correct decision with its determination confirming that Houlihan doped?
I'm not sure I agree with you -- it's possible that what you're saying is true, but in light of Naomi Osaka's recent admissions regarding mental health struggles, I think it's possible that Shelby could be dealing with anxiety on some level. Just because she's a professional doesn't mean she's invincible -- perhaps she and her team felt that races would hinder her mental health in the leadup. How would YOU handle being the fastest woman in America a year out from the Olympic trials? That level of pressure is unimaginable, and Shelby is entitled to step away from racing if she felt it was best for her mental health and focus.
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.
So she retires and is literally banned from running even for health and recreation?
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Again -- that was in there. Did you read it?
It's not your "thought"; it's CAS's decision. Let's try an experiment to see if you are capable of independent thought and not merely given to parroting the views and findings of others: based on what you understand of the case, are you satisfied that CAS came to the correct decision with its determination confirming that Houlihan doped?
The problem is that your last word is biased.
Doped more than means an active and conscious taker of drugs. I would not say that someone who inadvertently turned a positive has doped.
However from reading I am inclined to think they were
right in finding her guilty of breaking the rules.
To give me more confidence I would like to study the decision when it appears.
However this does not mean that the rules are correct and I believe should be such that she would have been cleared.
Runner10287 wrote:
Another giver of +1 wrote:
My understanding is that unless she retires from running she stays in the testing pool.
So she retires and is literally banned from running even for health and recreation?
No
Irish gymnast shows you can have sex in the "anti-sex" cardboard beds in the Olympic village (video)
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Per sources, Colorado expected to hire NAU assistant coach Jarred Cornfield as head xc coach
Katelyn Tuohy is back folks!!!!! Wins Sunset Tour 5k in 15:07!!!