bkrunner wrote:
the beagle wrote:
How is that a lie?
Seriously? If you know that she ate a carne asada burrito but you state that she ate a pig offal burrito, then you lied.
They know that she ordered a carne asada burrito but their belief is that is not what she was served, so no they do not “know that she ate a carne asada burrito”. That seems to be the piece you are missing.
I’m mostly shocked how at what a poor job they did of telling the story. They had MONTHS to prepare the defense and this statement, and they flubbed it with this many inconsistencies?
She needs a new attorney. Completely botched. You make sure that story is airtight and everyone says the exact same thing, no inconsistencies.
the beagle wrote:
That doesn't make the above statements from their team lies. It is funny that you actually lied trying to say as much - quite hypocritical.
The big lie is:
"We concluded that the most likely explanation was a burrito purchased and consumed approximately 10 hours before that drug test".
I say this because neither AIU nor CAS agreed with that statement.
All the rest is a well practiced show with lots of smokescreens, planned in detail for over five months to distract the public from the doping team.
This way, people argue whether or not they lied, and whom to believe, instead of investigating BTC, wondering when she started doping and who orchestrated it, let alone asking for dissolving that drug cheat's club. Nike wins, well done!
Maybe this guy was a cheap lawyer
the beagle wrote:
bkrunner wrote:
Seriously? If you know that she ate a carne asada burrito but you state that she ate a pig offal burrito, then you lied.
They know that she ordered a carne asada burrito but their belief is that is not what she was served, so no they do not “know that she ate a carne asada burrito”. That seems to be the piece you are missing.
I am not missing anything. I understand that the PR team and legal team want you to believe that. If you have ever had one bite of offal, you would understand why that is completely impossible.
Not just a bite bro, apparently enough to get you a 'false' positive on a doping test!
even saying chorizo is a joke. chorizo no one would confuse with beef
bkrunner wrote:
the beagle wrote:
They know that she ordered a carne asada burrito but their belief is that is not what she was served, so no they do not “know that she ate a carne asada burrito”. That seems to be the piece you are missing.
I am not missing anything. I understand that the PR team and legal team want you to believe that. If you have ever had one bite of offal, you would understand why that is completely impossible.
Then you don't know what a lie is. I can't help anymore, and that's coming from someone who doesn't think that Shelby's adverse finding was due to a burrito.
the main site has been changed and the tone is a little different than if anyone else got popped.
just look at the leads
Plus Gault reveals two huge facts that weren't previously known that work in opposite directions. 1) Christiane Ayotte, who was proven to have provided false testimony in the Jarrion Lawson case, was the one who labeled Houlihan's test as a positive. 2) Houlihan didn't actually order a pork burrito - she ordered carne asada.
the beagle wrote:
bkrunner wrote:
Seriously? If you know that she ate a carne asada burrito but you state that she ate a pig offal burrito, then you lied.
They know that she ordered a carne asada burrito but their belief is that is not what she was served, so no they do not “know that she ate a carne asada burrito”. That seems to be the piece you are missing.
You are too stupid for words. She didn't complain about getting the wrong burrito? She doesn't know the difference between pig offal and carne asada? You seriously believe this? Only AFTER she tests positive, do they retrace her food log and decide, with absolutely no evidence of such, that she must have gotten an offal burrito instead of a steak burrito. They did this because they learned that the food cart/truck/restaurant serves offal (allegedly), and they need to make that connection to the nandrolone to sell the excuse. And you 60 IQ, tiny brained sheep gobble it up like... well... pig offal.
Shelby and her camp excel at “grey area lying” — technically not lies (though her lawyer might cross the line; you have to believe that she received the wrong order) but the overall intent to deceive is there (ie that she ordered a pork burrito). It’s MUCH easier to believe that a pork burrito was contaminated with some pork organ meat than a steak burrito. Don’t forget that Shelby’s agent also claimed that she didn’t race because she had to travel to an appointment with her chiropractor despite obviously knowing the real reason...
Ray Cyst wrote:
the beagle wrote:
They know that she ordered a carne asada burrito but their belief is that is not what she was served, so no they do not “know that she ate a carne asada burrito”. That seems to be the piece you are missing.
You are too stupid for words. She didn't complain about getting the wrong burrito? She doesn't know the difference between pig offal and carne asada? You seriously believe this? Only AFTER she tests positive, do they retrace her food log and decide, with absolutely no evidence of such, that she must have gotten an offal burrito instead of a steak burrito. They did this because they learned that the food cart/truck/restaurant serves offal (allegedly), and they need to make that connection to the nandrolone to sell the excuse. And you 60 IQ, tiny brained sheep gobble it up like... well... pig offal.
And BTW, I just want to say that one of them saying it was a food cart, another a truck and another a restaurant, is not necessarily indicative of a lie, but even a 2 bit psychologist hack will tell you that this happens when people are told a story to repeat and have no independent knowledge or recollection of it. Children learn this in elementary school when they play telephone. The "press conference" was a joke.
Ray Cyst wrote:. And you 60 IQ, tiny brained sheep gobble it up like... well... pig offal.
If you actually knew how to read, you would see that I do not.
Has anyone said if this was an out-of-competition surprise test? It could explain if she popped a pill at night hoping to relax and get some rest as her body "recovers".
Meanwhile I’m still holding out hope she can still somehow run at the trials..
I can believe she was served and ate a different meat than she ordered. There are so many spices and even sauces that change the color taste and texture of the meat. It does seem unlikely that she ate enough of it, that it was contaminated, and she happened to be tested 10 hours later.
I also don’t believe that the team doesn’t know anything about nandrolone.
I certainly lean towards #1. She is likely guilty of doping.
With that said, LRC is not claiming #2 as fact, but as their opinion. Posters jumping all over the creators of this site that nobody is forcing them to visit. They are allowed their opinion like all of us, and you can take it or leave it. Yes, maybe a little biased, but aren’t we all? I appreciate the opposing points of view, but I’m sticking with guilty until there is more evidence to clear Houlihan.
Orders do get mixed up and substitutions made. But while Carne Asada is usually made from beef skirt/flank steak, it can also use pork meat.
jackamo wrote:
...Houlihan didn't actually order a pork burrito - she ordered carne asada.
This certainly feels like they googled the previous cases and were planning on going to down the tainted beef route and then realized there is no way to tie nandrolone to beef and switched to pork…
A lot of very manicured information and the CAS report is light on details, so i hope the AIU releases their findings,
Bawd on the information sounds a lot like she was micro-dosing for some reason and got caught.
rojo wrote:
2) Houlihan didn't actually order a pork burrito - she ordered carne asada.
You sure it wasn't a carne USADA?
ASADA is the Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority :-)
I am Sam wrote:
You sure it wasn't a carne USADA?
The one that has free nandrolone