Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's going on with Shelby Houlihan? [can run in OT... back out]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in View Post

    What's the significance of the negative hair sample - indication of non prolonged use?
    A positive for trace levels of something could mean that the athlete just consumed a tiny amount of something, or it could mean that they consumed a larger amount of something in the past and it is still clearing their system. A hair sample won't show trace amounts of anything, but if an athlete had consumed larger amounts of a substance in the past, it would show in the hair sample long after it had cleared the body.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Conor Dary View Post

      Why not....everyone else does...

      Though what other appeal is left? CAS is rather final...
      She could appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court but I think that can only be in relation to the legal conduct of the case not the facts of the case.

      AIU/WADA/CAS seem to do a pretty consistent job nowadays from the judgements I've read recently, especially compared to 15 years ago. On that basis, her chances on a procedural appeal are very low but not necessarily impossible.

      Comment


      • #78
        Reminds of the U. S. sprinter who blamed a beer binge on testing positive for a steroid.

        Comment


        • #79
          a
          Originally posted by polevaultpower View Post

          Those are all big bulky athletes in explosive sports/events. Nandrolone is performance enhancing, but not a good choice for an elite female distance runner to improve their performance.

          I mean anything is possible, but if you're going to risk your career by taking an easily detectable steroid, it would just make way more sense to take one that would be more effective for your body and your event.
          About a month ago I read that she'd been dealing with a nagging injury that caused problems after hard training sessions, and that she had plantar problems earlier this year. (I'm not sure when they started..) I'm not suggesting that the burrito explanation in this case isn't true, but there's a chance that anabolic steroids might also be given to athletes by certain "medical advisors" to speed up or improve the healing of certain sports injuries. (And in case anyone is wondering, I'm not confusing anabolic steroids with corticosteroids.)

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by berkeley View Post

            That was my thought - and Schumacher said the same thing. I fully believe that Shelby is innocent, but for a world class distance athlete and a world class distance coach to say they've never heard of it it far-fetched, and damages their credibility.
            From the USADA Anti-Doping 101 presentation linked from the USATF website:

            Any athlete who competes in events sanctioned by a national governing body is subject to testing. It’s also important to remember that you’re responsible for everything that goes on your skin, and in your eyes, ears, mouth, and nose.
            I know the English language evolves but as far as I am aware, "everything" is still definitive in this day and age.

            If a professional athlete checked the new prohibited list every year on the USADA website, they would also have noted the following on the relevant note on the landing page:

            5. Strict Liability

            As always, athletes subject to testing are strictly liable for any substance found in their blood or urine. Urine and blood sample(s) can be tested for more than 500 prohibited substances and metabolites. Samples are also routinely stored for reanalysis for up to 10 years and specialized analysis is conducted for additional substances based on the Athlete Biological Passport.
            However, in defence of not very bright athletes and coaches who need everything done for them, I would say that USADA, while correctly devoting a lot of resources to supplement risk, don't actually have a heading dealing with potential for food contamination.

            They do have a couple of postings on specific contamination issues like clenbuterol in beef but this is not as good as adding "Food" to the "Medicines and Medical Care" and "Supplements" headings so it's right up front.



            Comment


            • #81
              I always chuckle to myself when fans believe someone is innocent based off....well, what? Personality? Liveability? Even nice people dope you know!

              The taintedtainted BS excuse is a convenient Get Out Of Jail card for many, only this time it didn't work.

              As mentioned above, athletes use a cocktail of drugs. Of course they still use well known, detectable drugs too, that's how they get caught. Whether she used this for recovery or gains who knows, but pre Balco, who would have thought sprinters would take EPO? Who would have thought athletes would take modafonil? Or heart drugs?

              Houlihan's progression and improvement is an indicator of something fishy. And its always funny that athletes fail a test when they're in great form.
              Wiederganger
              Senior Member
              Last edited by Wiederganger; 06-15-2021, 09:00 AM.

              Comment


              • #82
                In her statement on Instagram she didn't mention anything about samples of the meat from the food truck having been tested in a lab. In other cases with contaminated beef or drinks or pills where the athletes were cleared or got a reduced sentence, the evidence for the appeal included lab-tested samples of the tainted food, drink, or medicine.

                If no samples were obtained and tested, it's no wonder she lost the appeal. If they let her refile with that evidence, maybe she'll have a chance. But even then, she damaged her credibility by claiming she's never heard of nandrolone. Even if it's true that she never heard of it, she should have known that it would look bad for a 28-year-old world class professional to say it. Nandrolone has been in the news too many times for too long; it's not one of those obscure drugs with a 25-letter name.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Wiederganger View Post
                  And its always funny that athletes fail a test when they're in great form.
                  Not really. When they're in great form, they're tested more often. The top 5 athlete who is tested 10+ times a year is going to have a greater probability of testing positive (if they're using) than the 35th-ranked athlete who is tested once or twice a year.
                  18.99s
                  Senior Member
                  Last edited by 18.99s; 06-15-2021, 10:11 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by aaronk View Post
                    This shouldn't just die out for lack of attention!
                    The same way the government forgets about gun control two days after a mass shooting!
                    There needs to be some sort of formal and visable protest--not just instagrams and tweets!
                    Maybe a John Carlos & Tommie Smith type protest--wearing some Shelby-type symbol, or saying something while NBC has their cameras going!
                    Because those two causes are definitely of equal weight

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by berkeley View Post
                      They should let her run in the trials provisionally, pending another appeal
                      She can't. She's been banned from competing (it's now showing on the AIU website).

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by 18.99s View Post
                        Not really. When they're in great form, they're tested more often. The top 5 athlete who is tested 10+ times a year is going to have a greater probability of testing positive (if they're using) than the 35th-ranked athlete who is tested once or twice a year.
                        And more people will take notice than when somebody in mediocre form tests positive.

                        That said, it is of course also true that suddenly finding a new gear and suddenly testing positive do tend to go hand-in-hand; and the women's 1500 specifically has a pretty ugly history in that regard.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          This is really too bad. I want to believe the story, but who knows any more.

                          As a lot of other people have said, there are many other PEDs that would make much more sense to use and would quite possibly be easier to get away with.

                          That being said, red flags we've seen in the past present here include: secretive group, rarely racing, massive improvement in the mid-20s from good to ridiculously good. Now in her case, we do know more about her and her group than we do in some other cases involving non-Americans but is that just how we are being played to be sympathetic or is this a robbery of her career and reputation?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            I saw this just before I went to bed last night, and it really bummed me out. If she is guilty, then shame on her and her team for breaking the rules and trying to dupe us into thinking she is innocent. If she is innocent, then I think this is a travesty.

                            If it is possible to test positive due to eating something like that, then I think he system is flawed. The goal should be to catch people who are using these drugs as part of a routine to gain an unfair advantage. We shouldn’t be trying to ban people for eating meat, or taking cold medication when they are sick.

                            I’m not a professional athlete, but things like this make me glad I was not good enough to reach the that level. It would be hard enough to put in the training, but if I have to worry about everything I eat, that seems overly burdensome, especially if I am on the road and may have to eat at a restaurant.

                            I agree with what Shalane was saying. I would rather lose to a doper than have an innocent person have their career ruined. If I was in her position, I’d feel like walking away as well.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              When I saw her win a big race with a super kicked I wondered out loud about PED. G.H. banned my comment. I don’t buy the Burrito defense.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                It is becoming increasingly difficult to give a Nike-sponsored athlete the benefit of the doubt.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X