This obsession with demonizing Shelby is disturbing in many ways that makes me sad for the state of humanity.
This article was discussed briefly in another thread a week ago in another Shelby thread. Probably most missed it because it wasn't a new thread.
Shelby/Jerry/Shalane reviewed what she wanted to do with a BTC lawyer, and according to the Code, Shelby is allowed to train and make private arrangements, even permitting running with other BTC athletes, so long as it is not connected to US Olympic movement funds and resources. It's a gray area, and certainly isn't a good look in the court of public opinion. And we have seen that it hardly matters what lawyers think, but ultimately what an arbitrator, or an arbitration panel thinks. In some places, we have seen that the Code is so broad and ambiguous, that if anti-doping officials wanted to convict a ham sandwich, they could.
But there are still many myths about how to interpret what the ruling means, that keep being repeated, as if by repetition, they will eventually become stronger. The ruling must be interpreted against the Code and the standards required in the Code.
I debated whether I should throw another rock in the pool, causing unwanted ripples in an audience who has made up their mind about many myths, but the clear statements found in the Code, and concessions from the experts in the CAS report, and outside opinions of other experts seem too often ignored. But here it is, for balance and perspective.
First, it should be noted that "breaking the rules" here does not require establishing fault, negligence, intent, or knowing use. The Code explicitly removes that obligation when determining both "Presence" and "Use" violations. Because care is not taken to distinguish or establish these elements, these rule violations will ultimately contain a mix of "innocent" athletes among the "intentional cheats", and no one can say which ones are which. This is what USADA anti-doping chief Travis Tygart has told us repeatedly since 2015 changes made a step in the wrong direction for innocent athletes.
But, but, but, didn't the CAS "find" intent?
Not in any true intellectual sense. You may find a simplified quote in a press release, but dig one layer deeper, and there is no evidentiary basis for, nor any proactive establishing of intentional use of synthetic nandrolone -- just a baseless presumption that was required to be rebutted. What they "found" was that Shelby did not convince the panel of the source of nandrolone on the balance of probability -- i.e. based on the limited evidence before them, they couldn't rule that it was probably pork.
But, but, but Shelby had a chance to prove "not intent" and she failed.
True. But is that how justice works? How does the saying go? You can't prove a negative. The burden for the athlete to prove "not intentional" is not one that is guaranteed to succeed. We saw how lucky the innocent athlete Simon Getzmann was -- if he had consumed all of his prescribed medicine with none left for testing, he wouldn't have been able to prove the source either. To supersede population likelihoods requires stronger evidence, like testing of the sample that led to the positive. Assuming for argument, that the boar Prof. McGlone said could slip by USDA inspectors, and said could have eaten soy, made it in the burrito, this would require testing the pork meat and organs in the burrito to establish with greater likelihood -- something no longer possible when the athlete is only notified one month after the event in question and the primary evidence has been long eaten and the remaining part discarded.
Did Shelby take synthetic nandrolone? Prof. Ayotte believes so, and she's an expert.
While it is tempting to want to believe this, probably for deep-rooted psychological reasons, it is impossible to say because no one has established the source of the nandrolone with any likelihood, say on the balance of probabilities. This was just conjecture of one consistent possibility on the part of Prof. Ayotte. All we can really say is that Shelby did not collect enough evidence to convince a panel that pork was the probably source. It is "consistent with" ingesting a nandrolone precursor. It is also "consistent with" ingesting meat and organs from an intact boar fed a diet of soy. Both of these are "low likelihood" events among the national population. We have evidence and concessions regarding the possibility of soy-fed pork in the CAS report. There is no evidence of nor-steroid precursor.
What about near-zero likelihood? Doesn't that make the pork story just ridiculous?
This is fundamentally the wrong model to assess the likelihood -- given a positive test result -- of the source of nandrolone. The low nationwide likelihood of soy-fed boar in a burrito is not the same likelihood that it is nevertheless a likely source of nandrolone -- among the narrow population of smaller athletes who produce a positive test result for nandrolone. Scientists like Prof. Ayotte have been telling us for decades how pork ingestion can trigger a positive result in the low 10ng range (and sometimes much higher, like 130-160). This is even built in the WADA TD, with recommendations to treat it as an ATF, and collect more data. And the expert Prof. McGlone told us on the order of 1 intact boar in 10,000 pigs can slip past USDA inspectors. Given 121,000,000 pigs slaughtered per year in the US, it is just a matter of time before the unlikely event of all factors combining and some athlete somewhere tests positive. And we saw that factors during the pandemic made things worse than Prof. McGlone would have you believe, undermining many of the arguments put forward, especially the concession from the expert Prof. McGlone that pigs ate soy during the relevant period of the pandemic.
What is the likelihood of a nor-steroid precursor?
This possibility was proposed as "consistent with", but never assessed. Some rightly point out "but she didn't order a pork burrito", but fail to consider "did she order a norsteroid precursor?" If we apply the same method argued to reject the pork explanation, this also presupposes a cascade of improbabilities with a composite probability of near-zero. That is because the "near-one" probability is that most athletes do not test positive for nandrolone in the pseudo-endogenous range.
Why doesn't Shelby just tell us the truth?
There is no reason to think that she hasn't been telling the truth the whole time. The small nationwide likelihood of intact boar in a burrito doesn't mean she wasn't the one, while many others tested negative. There are no better or more probable truths that came out of the CAS findings and appeals. She eventually said that they had done an extensive review of all the things and that she still wasn't sure of the source, but, after testing her vitamins was negative, the potential of pork ingestion from a wrong order was the most likely or only possible explanation. After all the processes and appeals, there is still no evidence established to believe that a failure to establish the probability of pork means it was a lie.
Why are people for Shelby, but hate Rupp and foreigners?
This a good question -- they should also question their hatred for Rupp and foreigners. For example, 50 Kenyans have tested positive for nandrolone -- a country which doesn't have USDA inspectors filtering out the boars and doesn't routinely castrate their pigs, and doesn't have much money to put up a defense against an aggressively prosecuted ADRV. It hardly seems credible that distance runners would ingest steroids for performance, particularly when ingesting it in small amounts has no proven (or even anecdotal) effect on performance. Anyone who knows about doping (e.g. Victor Conte has been telling us for years to stay away from it) knows that nandrolone is easily detectable, and since the days of CJ Hunter and the 2000 Sydney Olympics, knowledgeable athletes avoid it.
Are BTC and NOP dirty?
Maybe both BTC and NOP, at club level, have always been clean. Despite the CAS ruling and appeals, based on a set of presumptions against the athlete, Shelby's ingestion of nandrolone could still be accidental -- just an accident she couldn't prove.
After a lengthy NOP investigation, and aggressive prosecution, with 30 witness and thousands of documents, leaving no stone unturned, no NOP athlete was charged with any ADRV -- the USADA, the AAA, the CAS, and WADA all agreed on this point.
Aren't you just a troll or a shill?
No. This is something people invent to avoid intellectually re-evaluating their own deep-seated beliefs when the merits are questioned.