wow.

I don’t know how about this. I think a lot of people put these professionals up on the pedestal. They are not perfect nor should they. They don’t always do everything right, the way they “should”, or what is ideal/optimal for top performance. They are humans after all, not machines. I’m sure they like to have a cheat day or 2 just like the rest of us.


I've met and been around Age-Group Endurance Sports Athletes who are WAY more rigid and locked down than some of the World Class Athletes I've known over the years.

As I mentioned in a previous post - like any population, you the the full range of types of people among the World Class crowd. Yes - people put them on a pedestal and because they do ONE THING really well - ride a bike really fast - we think they do EVERYTHING at that same level! That is simply NOT the case! Just on the intelligence scale alone, I've known National Champions in my own country who are Mensa/Einstein/PhD level of intelligence and I've known others who, seem to have not even been able to graduate from high school!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

She might very well take an elbow in the ribs, or a few spikes in the ankle

---

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

Dev, the flow chart is from the WADA testing procedure document. - clarifying interpretation of results.

Love this take!

They should hand out 'offal alibi burritos' to all participants.

I would've been watching anyway, but I'm DEFINITELY going to watch now.

Which is, of course, why it's happening.

let's talk about this from a practical perspective. as i understand it, she lost her CAS appeal. she is, officially, banned. if she runs in the trials, she violates her ban, and she probably gets 4 more years tacked onto her current 4. for the CEO of USATF to state this, let alone make it an official policy of USATF, is pretty negligent, according to the only process i know. i think if you were to ask USADA, they'd advise, in strongest terms, against shelby participating in the trials. it would not surprise me if USADA has an official reply to this, because this undermines the Code.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Isn't that pretty much USATF telling USADA, WADA that they don't recognize the CAS verdict?
Or is it just to appease corporate sponsors?

any consequences from the IAAF for those who participate in races against "banned" runners?

Back in the old days when i started racing in the UK just participating in a race against someone banned for being a professional was enough to get a lifetime ban

Going back to the crazy eyes ... there's always a chance she could go Tonya Harding on someone, as well

---

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

yeah, this is baffling to me on USATF's part. unless:
-there are more pieces of important information about her specific situation that we don't have
-there are nuances/loopholes in the code that we're not aware of
-USATF, as mentioned above, specifically is trying to give the finger to the anti-doping agencies involved in shelby's case (like agencies fighting over jurisdiction in old cop movies)

but absent any more fulsome announcements from any of the players involved my main reaction - everyone's, it seems - is pure bafflement.

---

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

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

what i read in the article is that, somehow, you can appeal to switzerland's regular court system if you don't like the CAS result. but unless CAS chose to stay their own arbitration finding - and i've never heard of that happening - then she races in violation of the ban handed down. we all, even as annual members, even as one-day members, agree to USADA's process, and to be governed by the Code, period. if we as individual members agree to this, how much more so those who run our governing bodies.

i do't think the CEO of USATF is giving the finger to the process. i just don't think he understands it. he doesn't understand what it means to accept WADA and USATF jurisdiction. which is pretty fundamental to your job.

if vegas has a line on this, i think it would be worth the bet. there is no way she toes the starting line of the first preliminary race. at some point somebody is going to read the CEO of USATF in on what his job is.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Unless there is something nasty going on between USADA / CAS / WADA. It does appear that lab is a bit suspect and it is odd that the official lab would not test the hair.

If it is the burrito then that is pretty different the then Canadian Cocoa tea example as I would question drinking that if cocaine is a banned substance. My issue is the strict liability that we put on athletes if effectively we require them to raise their own food. Just be cause we can detect something doesn't mean it is performance enhancing. Or maybe we as fans expect athletes to live as monks.

And we have WADA lab heads who can lie under oath without consequences. Or if they are not lying then they are too incompetent to do the job.

So if their is strict liability for the athletes there should be strict liability for the Lab heads. Not the technicians, but those in charge of the labs themselves.

that's both a reasonable interpretation of recent events and a staggering indictment of USATF,,,

---

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

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

What is the end game for USATF? Let's say she qualifies and whatever appeal is not settled before the Games, then she would be banned from competing there, no?

which lab was it? because, i hadn't heard that the lab did anything wrong, and i don't even know which lab it was. you seem to know more about this than i do.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

The entire case so far is an indictment of the drug testing process. You have someone still leading a lab, who provided false testimony -> How is there not strict liability there?

"Here’s what we do know about the CAS hearing. When Jarrion Lawson appealed his case to CAS, there was one key factor that allowed him to win the appeal. Greene — who also represented Lawson — was able to show that one of the AIU’s expert witnesses, Professor Christiane Ayotte, director of the WADA-accredited doping control lab in Montreal, provided false testimony in Lawson’s original AIU appeal.
Houlihan’s sample was tested in Ayotte’s lab. Ayotte was the one who decided to report the result of Houlihan’s test as an adverse analytical finding (i.e. a positive test), rather than an atypical finding (which would have triggered an investigation rather than suspension), as is done in potential food contamination cases. She testified as her own expert witness in Houlihan’s CAS hearing."

Edited to add a link to the letsrun article -> https://www.letsrun.com/...track-field-tragedy/

"they all said it was very, very greasy"

"Ayotte was called by the AIU as an expert witness in Lawson’s AIU appeal. She testified that in recent years, positive tests for trenbolone in her lab had always featured low concentrations of the substance, making it impossible to separate intentional cheaters from those who had ingested contaminated meat.
Lawson’s team requested records from Ayotte’s lab to confirm these claims; the lab denied the records, forcing Lawson’s team to appeal to CAS to compel the lab to turn them over.
The actual records revealed Ayotte’s claim was not accurate. The CAS panel noted some of the levels measured "were large" and that 18 of the 21 positive tests for trenbolone since 2013 contained higher concentrations than Lawson’s .65 ng/mL."

Just curious:
How many of the tests by her lab were "with low levels", and reported as negative or adverse findings?
Positive means: over the threshold, right? So 18 of 21 were significantly over, which means? nothing.

You can always spin a story a certain way.
But the factual data don't lie.

Most athletes who enhance are micro-dosing by now. Hence the thresholds.

How do you know all this? I can't find a CAS report on the CAS website, or any public document on the AIU site.


Edit: Beyond this CAS media release.

“ Most athletes are micro-dosing by now. Hence the thresholds. ”

I can’t find the threshold for Trenbolone. It looks like the current is 5ng/ml. Which is ~10x what he tested positive for. So her sample size was everything. Which makes her testimony so dishonest.

Strict liability made sense before measurement systems were so sensitive.

It feels like there are too many cases of inadvertent doping vs intentional doping. If There is strict liability then what is the appropriate ratio of inadvertent to intentional? Or how many dopers should go free to save on innocent athlete?

Or Does the ratio not matter because we expect the athletes to test every thing that they consume?

I see it similar to reducing voter turnout vs preventing fraudulent votes. There are trade offs.

The dark/mucky/murky side of this - https://kevinbeck.substack.com/...p;utm_source=twitter

An interesting read!

Nothing is resolved by reading this - but you see how in the U.S., when this sort of thing happens, it can get REALLY messy. Compare it to, if it was some random Kenyan runner who was at the same level. There would be none of this going on!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog