What I find most interesting (even from the comments here) is the double standard that many are applying to her vs others that failed drug tests. People here are proclaiming her innocence without any information one way or the other for heaven's sake! If she were almost any other nationality, or maybe even looked different as an American (e.g. not white and good looking), the comments would have a lot less denial (even compare to when Froome's positive came out, and that was one of the more mixed ones). I also have an issue with her teammates posting messages of support- I know you may like her personally but it's not a good look to throw your hat into the ring behind someone who tested positive. Better to just stay out and not bring more scrutiny on the team and themselves as athletes.

Fact of the matter is that she had double the limit of a banned substance, and it's her responsibility to show definitive proof of how that happened or she should rightly be banned and labeled a doper. Now that said, there is a serious issues with inconsistent penalties from anti-doping agencies for violations (4 years here seems crazy, as did the original multi-year ban for Starky). I also think that a philosophical discussion is needed about what substances SHOULD be banned vs permitted- but right now the rules are written and it's athletes and coaches' responsibility to know and abide. Intentionally or not, Shelby and team failed and should face repercussions. I highly doubt she's the only one in her distances or even on Bowerman playing in the gray area, but that's just my opinion.

Fair point....but if it wasn't a regular visitor/local/known/reputable all the more reason not to use it?

who here is doing that?



this is such a flawed argument that gets repeated not infrequently. it's boring.

To your point U.S. Track & Field in general has a huge doping problem, reaching back decades. Most notably in the sprinting and field events (It's just been a week or so since reigning Olympic gold medallist Brianna McNeal got a 5-year ban), but not hard to believe it could cross over into the middle (or long) distances.

And beyond that elite track & field worldwide is looking more and more like it's a giant pharmaceutical trial.

I'm a road cyclist, fer chrissakes, and I'm blushing looking at all these track athletes.

I'm not saying it was a smart decision, if that's even how it went down at all

I - for one - very rarely order anything but chicken or beef from a food truck [other than an occasional lamb gyro]; pork carnitas for instance = nope, sorry

ETA: What did Matt Centrowitz order? Aren't/weren't they a couple? Was his test clean?

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Something stinks over at BTC. They had an incredible run of form last year in team track meets. Everyone assumed it was the super shoes and the team culture.

The BTC ladies have really struggled this year to find the kind of form they had last fall. Maybe there was an internal memo to stop eating the pork?

What is interesting it appears that she could have competed at the trials if they had not argued for an expediated case. I am not sure if asking for expediated case is an indication of innocence or not.

But if you feel they are innocent then isn't it a good look to mention their innocence, as you are sticking your neck out for them? And then if they say nothing, others will use it as evidence of the persons guild. It is lose-lose for them.

Any scientific studies specifically performed to detect nandrolone after consumption of contaminated meat will have a sampling strategy specifically designed to detect the maximum value in something that is transient. I'm more familiar with doing studies in drug development where plasma conc is measured in samples taken at specific time intervals, but i expect the studies require collection and testing of all urine samples for a specific time after ingestion in order to be certain of having the sample with the maximum concentration, whenever that may be. With any random sample all we get is a snapshot in time. Of course it is possible this is the time when the concentration in urine was at a max......but it in most cases it isn't going to be. So to go to a study where subjects deliberately ate contaminated (boar) meat and point out that the random sample/snapshot was in the range of the max values seen in the study is a bit of a stretch. Would have to be unlucky.

i haven't looked at the specific multi-level test in detail but the experts may be able to discern more than a urine conc and endogenous/exogenous from the data, even if the decision making criteria don't allow them to use it for AAF/No AAF decisions, and that information may indicate a non-oral source.

The amount quoted in all of the articles which comes from her posts is 5ng/ml. At the time most of the articles were written the Athletics Integrity Unit had not released her name and sanction. It has now been posted under "latest sanctions" https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

almost totally agree with you, but: doesn't the fact that nandrolone lingers longer in the body (wait - is that a fact? w/r/t elimination half-life?) somewhat increase the odds that you'd still be at "high" (if not "max") values for a longer window, which in turn increases the odds of one of your drug tests falling when you're at high conc?

it's still pretty long odds, as these things go, unless perhaps she was tested, say, 50 times last year.

ETA: this is totally besides her presumed guilt or innocence, i'm just trying to think through this as a stats problem . . .

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Would be interested to read the CAS decision, but it is not yet on their website and they never list her as an active hearing. Sort of strange.

can only see plasma profiles for IM injections online - which are designed to last several days through gradual absorption from the depot. I've seen references that the elimination half-life is about 4h but haven't found an actual study report.

Nothing much on drugs@fda.gov as none of the approved products are oral - and the brands have discontinued (common when the whole market goes generic) so labels (which typically include pk) and data used to support approval are harder to find.

Maybe it was multiple burritos

Like The Chipotle Challenge

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

https://academic.oup.com/...le/90/5/2624/2836761

Oral exposure via contaminated supplements seem to clear in about 6d according to this paper. This seemingly would assume that supplements are more than a single contaminated meal and would have time to get to a reasonable serum level.

Seems to me that steroids ain't cheap, so using them in animals is just not worth the ROI
I doubt the tainted meat thing.

Thanks for the huge lunch time (no meat) laughs.

yeah, interesting point - scientifically, if you don't know whether you're testing for oral or IM use, it's sort of hard for your results to be meaningful . . .

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

From "Doping in Sport: Global Ethical Issues"
4. Reliance on Science (of nandrolone, in the body and of qualities)
"Dr. Wheeler, from St Thomas' Hospital, London is quoted as saying that there is evidence that after a competitive event or hard training, nandrolone levels go up above the limit. Nandrolone can also easily enter the body through contaminated hydrating substances or through contaminated meat; and legal dietary supplements are broken down by the body to produce the same substances when nandrolone is broken down in the body. Also, nandrolone traces can persist within the body for up to 12 months."
"One ruling in 1999 of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne supports these misgivings and said that, despite the WADA ruling that 4 nanograms of nandrolone per millilitre of urine should be the limit, 2 to 5 nanograms was a 'grey area', and that such a level could be the result of endogenous production of the human body.' [38] Such findings suggest that too strict an application of the rules might well result in injustice, and to avoid it we need to be as sure as we can rely on the science behind the rules."

Food truck was probably owned by Nike.

Centro is so 2018.

It's interesting to note that she was caught by the AIU (track and field) and NOT USADA. It's also interesting that she was tested 16 times by USADA in 2020. USADA scaled back testing in 2020 due to Covid, but still 16 times is significant. So either she knew her USADA test schedule, USADA sucks at testing, or USADA might be covering, because you don't just start shooting up steroids on a whim. It would be interesting to know the date of her last USADA test.

Jacked? Wow, you guys have a warped sense of what jacked is. LOL. She looks exactly like every other female distance athlete on Bowerman.

https://images.app.goo.gl/91bohfwztTX5nbxDA

she may be guilty as sin. probably is. but to place this in perspective, i think the threshold is 2ng/ml. here is a study where an eyedrop solution was administered to volunteers, and then testing was done, and the urine concentration of nadrolone was 450ng/ml.

so, i don't know anything about her case at all. i know what i'm reading in this thread. but if your post is meant to show how heavily she was doped, because she tested at double the threshold, that number would have been 4ng/ml, which is 1/100th the concentration of what was seen in this test i reference. i believe dieter baumann's result was 10x or 20x the threshold (he vociferously denied doping), and as we see it's pretty easy to get a result 100x the threshold, so 2x the threshold seems pretty low, esp for women, who have been shown to generate endogenous nandrolone.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Endogenous production results from a reaction involving testosterone. From a brief search, it seems the only detectable nandrolone in women involved pregnancy. (but further search could prove me wrong)

In men, it's detectable, but also as far as I can tell, it'd be rare to have a level above the threshold limit. Even in elite athletes.

The combination of those two things seem to me it'd be unlikely that it was endogenous. But she could undergo testing to see if she's a unicorn-type endogenous producer. Which if one existed, it might not be surprising to find them in elite athletics.

my post was meant to by hyperbolic rhetoric but also:


i am operating under the assumption that consumption and resultant digestion of contaminated meat is a more difficult absorption process than a direct vascular transfer of a banned substance...

here, in a snippet from a circular produced by FIFA, it says that some contraceptives women take to delay menstruation contain norethisterone, a nandrolone metabolite that will trigger an adverse finding. i also think pregnancy can generate an AAF for nandrolone, which would qualify as endogenous production. i may ask around about her case.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman