Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HUGE NEWS! Shelby Houlihan doping positive - Banned for 4 years!

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Sovietvest View Post
    She's actually not claiming contaminated pork. If I understand the case right, she is saying that she ordered a pork burrito but believes she was given a pork offal burrito (which was also on the menu) and pork offal is naturally full of Nandrolone. The small amount of Nandrolone in her system was consistent with having eaten it 10 hours earlier - and she has a receipt for a purchase at that time.
    But then the principle of strict liability still applies.

    Comment


    • #17
      As soon as her and her coach claimed to have never heard of nandrolone before, you then have to seriously doubt anything else that comes out of their mouths surely.

      Comment


      • #18
        That woman has been allowed to enter heat 3 of the 1500 race at the trials. And clowns like a certain poster consider me anti american ranter. A dis graceful social media campaign mounted to make sure that Wada only finds guilty non americans in respect of the rules of WADA. It would not have happened if the athlete was a low achiever that nobody had ever heard of
        We all know that USA TF are cowards who have been happy when CAS found in favour of the meat eaters .
        Remember that other olympic drug scandal about their 400m druggie.Reynolds.??
        Those cheats in the States are devoid of any belief in rules for their country. Hope WA and IOC stand firm and ban them from all t and f.if she runs.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by philipo View Post
          That woman has been allowed to enter heat 3 of the 1500 race at the trials. And clowns like a certain poster consider me anti american ranter. A dis graceful social media campaign mounted to make sure that Wada only finds guilty non americans in respect of the rules of WADA. It would not have happened if the athlete was a low achiever that nobody had ever heard of
          We all know that USA TF are cowards who have been happy when CAS found in favour of the meat eaters .
          Remember that other olympic drug scandal about their 400m druggie.Reynolds.??
          Those cheats in the States are devoid of any belief in rules for their country. Hope WA and IOC stand firm and ban them from all t and f.if she runs.
          That's utterly incredible and she's listed in heat 1 of the 5000m too.

          I think her chances of overturning or reducing this ban are extremely slim / virtually nil - the more info that comes about the chances of having her levels of nandrolone only from consuming a small pork burrito, the more she looks guilty of intentional doping.
          However, she'll do herself absolutely no favours in that quest by competing at the Trials. CAS, WA etc wouldn't look kindly upon someone who so brazenly ignored a ban on competing.

          And like you say, USATF should face some sanctions if they allow it to happen. A blanket ban on the USA would seem highly unlikely but there's other things that could be done.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Grassmarket View Post

            But then the principle of strict liability still applies.
            Fair comment Grassmarket, athletes are liable for what's in their bodies but I don't believe 'Strict' liability - although it's a term we all use / have heard - has ever really applied. WADA etc, have always been able to rule that a substance got into someone's body through no fault of their own - in other words they could not reasonably have expected that their steak / burrito / prescription medicine contained a substance that was not supposed to be there.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sovietvest View Post

              Fair comment Grassmarket, athletes are liable for what's in their bodies but I don't believe 'Strict' liability - although it's a term we all use / have heard - has ever really applied. WADA etc, have always been able to rule that a substance got into someone's body through no fault of their own - in other words they could not reasonably have expected that their steak / burrito / prescription medicine contained a substance that was not supposed to be there.
              I'm sorry Sovietvest, I often agree with your points of view and well written commentary on these boards.... But the very fact that apparently neither Houlihan NOR her coach, a very experienced one at that, had *no idea* what Nandralone was and it's implications, seems to stretch the realms of believabilty to their breaking point.

              Also, Houlihan making claims about eating tainted meat or whatever, parroting the same excuses prior drugs cheats have tried to use unsuccessfully to defend themselves is not helping her case either.
              RunUnlimited
              Senior Member
              Last edited by RunUnlimited; 17-06-21, 14:56.

              Comment


              • #22
                Whilst, on balance, I still believe Houlihan, I think the US reporting of this is very biased - Letsrun is especially disappointing. Plenty of things in the BTC/Nike/Houlihan narrative that are not being scrutinised or corrected.

                As others mentioned the professed ignorance of nandrolone is dubious but the suggestion that steroids don't help middle distance runners and therefore Houlihan would never take them is disingenuous at best.

                Constantly referring to 'trace' amounts is misleading - I gather she was double the legal limit. And the hair testing claim is confusing. They say it can prove no long-term steroid abuse but I've read the contrary (with links to scientific papers).

                The lawyer blaming everything on European bias is a nice line to whip up support but the lab was in Canada. Loved the suggestion that the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' was a purely US legal thing.

                I need to check again what they actually state she ate because either I wasn't paying attention or they have been vague. Was it a pork buritto, a steak buritto or a pig offal burritto? And how do you even spell burito?

                Bottom line for me now is understanding how much nandrolone was in her system and how much pig offal had to have been in that buritto to get the reading. Let's see what AIU / WADA share.

                I'm still inclined to believe her. I believe Schumacher and Flannagan believe in her and they were totally sincere. But you can never rule out an athlete with an injury panicking and taking a short cut with a view to returning to training sooner. Could easily be done without the coach's knowledge.

                Sovietvest
                Senior Member
                Last edited by Sovietvest; 17-06-21, 16:00.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sovietvest View Post

                  Bottom line for me now is understanding how much nandrolone was in her system and how much pig offal had to have been in that buritto to get the reading. Let's see what AIU / WADA share.
                  From what I've been reading you'd have to consume about 300g of pig offal - that's a might big burrito! - from an uncastrated boar.

                  Apparently uncastrated boars are very rare on US pig farms (they castrate them because they're overly aggressive) and uncastrated pork products are more expensive, partly because they're much harder to come by.

                  What are the chances that the food truck guy gave Houlihan expensive uncastrated pig offal instead of the steak burrito she says she ordered? If you've got an expensive product you tend not to make mistakes like that and "give it away". What are the chances he was even selling uncastrated pig offal given how rare it is in the US? And what are the chances that at the time Shelby didn't notice what is apparently a very different taste from steak or pork (I wouldn't know, I'm vegetarian!)

                  If the first number (300g) is correct, maybe the rest is irrelevant? She gave no indication that she ate 3 or 4 of these burritos that night.

                  Comment


                • #24
                  Pig offal is a red herring in my opinion. Why was the hair sample negative. Why has no body suggested a false positive - like what happened to Mark Richardson. I'm no scientist, but I'm still waiting for a better explanation, as I still don't have enough data to make a judgement.

                  Comment


                  • LuckySpikes
                    LuckySpikes
                    Senior Member
                    LuckySpikes commented
                    Editing a comment
                    When did she get her hair sample tested? Couldn't it have cleared out of her system by then if she stopped taking nandrolone as soon as she got the notification of a positive doping test?

                  • Ladyloz
                    Ladyloz
                    Senior Member
                    Ladyloz commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Mark Richardson's case was contaminated supplements. He still had to serve a ban though as Strict Liability applied. Anti Doping agencies don't recommend using supplements because unlike Medicines there are no regulations around labelling all ingredients. Of course many athletes use supplements of some sort but they tend to use companies who batch test all their products.

                • #25
                  Guilty admission - I would LOVE to be proven wrong about Houlihan. As I said before, I have a deep dislike of Nike and find BTC a smug, sanctimonious bunch. LuckySpikes post is particularly compelling. I may have been taken in by the theatrics of the show on Monday night - like I said, I really believe Schumacher and Flannagan. Maybe they've been duped.

                  Comment


                  • #26
                    Originally posted by MBChristie View Post
                    Pig offal is a red herring in my opinion. Why was the hair sample negative. Why has no body suggested a false positive - like what happened to Mark Richardson. I'm no scientist, but I'm still waiting for a better explanation, as I still don't have enough data to make a judgement.
                    Plus pig offal (black pudding, yum!) would be chitterlings ie very obvious rubbery tube things.

                    Comment


                    • #27
                      Originally posted by Sovietvest View Post
                      Whilst, on balance, I still believe Houlihan, I think the US reporting of this is very biased - Letsrun is especially disappointing. Plenty of things in the BTC/Nike/Houlihan narrative that are not being scrutinised or corrected.

                      As others mentioned the professed ignorance of nandrolone is dubious but the suggestion that steroids don't help middle distance runners and therefore Houlihan would never take them is disingenuous at best.

                      Constantly referring to 'trace' amounts is misleading - I gather she was double the legal limit. And the hair testing claim is confusing. They say it can prove no long-term steroid abuse but I've read the contrary (with links to scientific papers).

                      The lawyer blaming everything on European bias is a nice line to whip up support but the lab was in Canada. Loved the suggestion that the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' was a purely US legal thing.

                      I need to check again what they actually state she ate because either I wasn't paying attention or they have been vague. Was it a pork buritto, a steak buritto or a pig offal burritto? And how do you even spell burito?

                      Bottom line for me now is understanding how much nandrolone was in her system and how much pig offal had to have been in that buritto to get the reading. Let's see what AIU / WADA share.

                      I'm still inclined to believe her. I believe Schumacher and Flannagan believe in her and they were totally sincere. But you can never rule out an athlete with an injury panicking and taking a short cut with a view to returning to training sooner. Could easily be done without the coach's knowledge.
                      I agree that talk of trace amounts in this context is misleading as many people would probably have these as a result of a relatively normal diet.

                      Comment


                      • #28
                        The massive levels of nadrolone compared to the trace elements that would be present if the boar excuse was even valid make it a nonsense that anyone considers that to be a legitimate excuse. And that seems to be what CAS have concluded. If this was a ban imposed by USADA before appeal I'd have some thought that her defence might hold water prior to a CAS appeal, but I can't see how anyone can take a press conference display as compelling when CAS have already dismissed her spurious defence.

                        It's an utter disgrace that she'll be on the start at the trials, the other athletes should refuse to race.

                        Comment


                        • #29
                          Originally posted by larkim View Post
                          ...

                          It's an utter disgrace that she'll be on the start at the trials, the other athletes should refuse to race.
                          If there were no other BTC athletes competing I would say that's a great idea. However, if they refused to race, Cranny & S Johnson in the 1500 wouldn't refuse and neither would the 4 BTC athletes in the 5000. So, by refusing they wouldn't be forcing USATF to run the races without Houlihan, they'd just be giving all those BTC athletes a completely free ride on to the team.

                          Should they refuse to race regardless? That's tough if you're in the form of your life and an Olympic place is on the line! I know, principles 'n all that but still ...

                          Comment


                          • #30
                            Scandalous challenge to the world order and rules of anti doping and CAS hearings; why bother chaps. what do you expect from the USATF rogues.
                            Still appealing say the Americans.... well lets see how many other athletes who get found guilty by CAS keep appealing on and on
                            . World Athletics has nothing to say; WADA has nothing to say; CAS has nothing to say;
                            So much for that nasty hypocrite Tygart of USADA, happy to heap shit on the Russians, when talking about the need for a clean sport is worth fighting for, and then lets this guilty woman appeal. Thank god she will not get any medals at these Games.
                            McNeal and now this Houlihan woman allowed to compete... what is the point of following this sport???Will the rules that you are not guilty if you have disallowed items in your body be changed to suit the Yanks.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X