Shelby making 10000 record attempt at the Ten

Dropped pass. It was found in her urine, which was produced by her body - her "system" - which the Court accepted was proof of a banned substance in her body.

That people see your views are false doesn't mean they think they "matter".

A Court has dismissed all arguments such as yours. So your views are completely irrelevant - as well as being false.

Nice deflection. Just to remind you: The drug test is not consistent with ingestion of endogenous nandrolone from a commercial intact boar stomach offal burrito.

I did say the words "the nandrolone got in her system" as part of a question. I followed up directly with my answer: "most of it is filtered out on first pass".

Here is the math: 5.? x (1 - "most") = "maybe negligible, but surely far less than 2"

"maybe" means maybe negligible.

Receipts may be evidence, and may be accepted when it is not contested, but are not proof. The Panel's finding was inconclusive: "The Panel finds that it is possible that – contrary to what the Athlete ordered – she was handed a burrito containing pork meat."

I rejected the CAS's opinion, and went with the science, as the CAS seemed to selectively ignore the expert concession of commercial pork being fed an increased amount of soy, and perhaps weren't aware of the part of Prof. Ayotte's study which also produced similar results from local Canadian boar.

Yes it is, according to the WADA TD. Your word salad can be found nowhere in the WADA TD nor the CAS report.

Some call it "presystemic metabolism". Again your word salad can be found nowhere else.

Actually it does, when people care enough to reply.

The CAS did not dismiss this argument, but accepted the possibility: "The Panel finds that it is possible that – contrary to what the Athlete ordered – she was handed a burrito containing pork meat."

Satire?? The science, and everyone else (except for the Shelburrito team), shows you are talking nonsense.

I accepted the unanimous CAS's decision ("opinion", nice), and went with the science, as also confirmed by the Letsrun Consultant Prof. Tucker and Long Time USADA CEO Tygart and WADA-lab Director Prof> Ayotte, and dismissed your deflections and baseless spinning (as everyone should).

So, the receipt was evidence, and the panel found that it's possible that the evidence was wrong. "possible", not proven. I see why you have tried not providing that quote: "pork meat"? So, no testicles or kidneys - remember that for next time.

Your math falsely assumes that the total amount ever in her body was only 5.?. Correct is only that 5.2 and 5.8 ng/ml were found in her urine at an undetermined time after she took it. Even IF you further assume that she took the drug 10 hours (as claimed) before that, the maximum concentration in her urine would have been between 10 - 20 ng/ml after 4 - 6 hours based on comparable literature data (which vary substantially from person to person). And recall that we were not discussing a maximum, but a total. Long story short: you'd need more data to determine whether or not it was more than 2 in total.

FYI, I looked up your "most": if nandrolone was used in the common ester form, then between 85% (dermal) and 97% (oral) got filtered out in the liver (otherwise much less).

The WADA TD says concentrations are usually in the low, less than 10 ng/ml range, and sometimes higher (e.g. 130-160 ng/ml), with a CIR in the range between -15 ‰ and -25 ‰.

It looks like the CAS based their opinion, not on the science, but on partial testimony of the "experts", while ignoring other testimony.

I didn't see any science on commercial pork -- just another opinion about what usually happened before the pandemic.

I said the the "proof" of what she ate was ambiguous rather than proven one way or the other -- as we see from the inconclusive finding from the CAS.

"pork meat" was a "bait and switch" that appears to have worked in fooling the CAS, and you. The claim from the beginning, by the 6th day, was "from pig offal", and not "pork meat" -- a claim which was never fully rebutted, nor fully addressed by the CAS. Please remember that for the next time.

"ng/ml" is a unit of concentration. So I guess it doesn't really makes much sense to attempt to compare the quantity of nandrolone circulating in a much larger volume of blood (4-5 liters), compared to nandrolone filtered out and accumulated and concentrated in the bladder, then into a tiny cup of urine. 85% or 97% does seem to confirm that "most" of it is filtered out, never getting into the system.

Even a maximum of 10-20 ng/ml is not damning, when Prof. Ayotte found a maximum concentration in one volunteer of 130-140 ng/ml. WADA would still call that endogenous, and instruct the WADA Lab that that is WADA legal.

Rekrunner, if you had a gun to your head, and you had to be correct to live (accept the farfetched hypothetical), what would your educated guess be about what caused Shelby to test positive for Nandrolone?

Lol Kwax, look at the date.

This is like flipping a 3-sided coin (accept it) to live, or playing Russian Roulette with 4 bullets in 6 chambers.

Here is my educated guess:

There are three main possibilities I will consider: 1) oral nandrolone precursor, 2) contaminated supplements, and 3) the greasy burrito.

Unlike most people, I find intentional doping with an oral nandrolone precursor to be a most implausible scenario, and one completely lacking any evidence. This presupposes distance athletes would even want to dope with steroids. Oral ingestion is the least effective method, due to the low quantities ingested, and first pass filtering. Nandrolone is easily detectable in low quantities and has been for decades. So it is high risk with low reward. She already had a good sponsor on one of America's top teams, and was hoping to go to the Olympics. An elite athlete on Nike's flagship team with so much at stake would not make such a rookie mistake. There is no evidence for this scenario beyond speculation that it is plausible, other than it is possible to order it on Amazon, and assumes that its CIR would likely be in the same pseudo-endogenous range. There is no estimated likelihood for this scenario, after careful considering of a cascade of presupposed factors, for comparison purposes.

Next scenario would be contaminated supplements. Not much to discuss here. It is a common risk, but proving it without samples from the same batches is like finding a needle in a haystack, or winning the lottery twice.

This leaves the burrito scenario, where we have the most information. In favor of the scenario is that she received and ate an uncharacteristically greasy burrito, at about the right time 10 hours before her test, and the WADA TD says consuming intact boar offal usually produces her levels, and the CIR will be in the right range if the boar consumes enough C3 plants (e.g. rice, wheat, soybeans, potatoes, etc.). Furthermore the pandemic created unique conditions with significant delays and deviations from usual practices.

Most people here read the WA/AIU rebuttal argument in the CAS report, and think it is an airtight, solid, slam-dunk rebuttal, as if the cascade of presuppositions can accurately estimate the likelihood in Houlihan's specific instance. Generally rules do not invalidate the exceptions. I find it both evidentially weak and logically flawed, full of assumptions, and fallacies, lacking evidence, and generally falling far short of the quality that scientific experts should produce. Even if we assume all the assumptions are true, it is a fallacy to project national likelihoods onto individual cases. If we estimate the likelihood of the pork scenario, we should not consider it absolutely across the national landscape of pigs, but compare that likelihood with the estimated likelihoods of alternative scenarios, as well as estimating likelihood errors, after adapting it to the specific case by eliminating unknowns to the extent possible.

But many assumptions are not true, especially during the pandemic. Because of delays, slaughtered pigs were older than 6 months so androgen/nandrolone levels will be higher. Pigs ate more soy so CIRs will be lower. Intact boars could be cryptorchid, but could also be chemically castrated, or immunocastrated. Chemical or immunocastration effects are temporary and a 2-3 month delay in slaughter can be significant. USDA inspectors will accept boars that pass the sniff test. Maybe moreso if there were previous significant delays in pig processing. (How much sniffing are inspectors doing during an airborne pandemic?) Houlihan claimed "offal in a burrito", and not strictly "pork meat and stomach", which will produce higher concentration values than pork meat literature indicates.

But most problematic for accused athletes is the WADA Code tilts many things against them by burdening the athlete to rebut several presumptions: 1) the science is valid, 2) the WADA Lab followed the ISL, 3) the WA followed the ISRM, and 4) any ADRV is intentional. On short notice, in a dispute between the uninitiated athlete, and teams with experts with decades of experience, the uninitiated athlete is expected to perform quality control on the WADA science, on the WADA Lab, and on the WA, to attempt to prove that there is a flaw in the decisions. In parallel, the athlete must conduct a nationwide search for the source of the nandrolone. If the choices are supplements and pork, the athlete must become an expert in the supplement manufacturing industry, and in the pork raising, slaughter and distribution industry, tracing all the ingredients back, not only to the animal in question, but determing what the animal ate in his last days -- to a burden of "more likely than not". All of this while the athlete is under time pressure to compete in Olympic trials, on a limited budget as her income dries up due to suspension.

My educated guess is 1) the science is ambiguous when the values are low (less than 10 ng/ml) and the CIR is in the endogenous range; 2) by considering plausibiities and likelihoods and altering the claim, as well as using the GC/C/IRMS test after the athlete "invoked" pork, the WADA Lab did not follow the WADA TD nor meet their burden; 3) the WA cannot find an ADRV if there is no proper AAF; 4) there is no basis to ask the athlete to establish the source if there is no proper ADRV.

The CAS made many findings. The substantive ones were an assessment of the strength of Houlihan's rebuttals, rather than assessing the strength of the evidence against her and drawing conclusions based on the strength of the evidence: 1) she didn't rebut enough the science, the AAF, or the ADRV; and 2) she failed to establish the source, and therefore didn't rebut enough the presumption of intent. The CAS made many other intermediate findings, attempting to decide what was in the burrito. These findings are problematic as they rely on many general assumptions which may not be valid, some of which I listed above. These findings do not have the evidentiary strength to disprove any claim, and were only used by the CAS to help gauge whether Houlihan met her "more likely than not" burden for establishing the source, and therefore non-intent.

The panel accepted evidence that said the possibility was "near zero". Or, in the words of the panel, her attempted defence amounted to a "cascading series of improbabilities". But you are the champion of a cascading series of improbabilities.

LOL. Once you understand, or rather, accept, that it was stomach offal from commercial pork (or beef as ordered), you realize, or rather, have to admit, how airtight the case against the burrito is. You may be able to fool 1 or 2 readers here with your "bait and switch" nonsense in the CAS report, or your constant deflections to higher amounts from boar nuts, and your false claims that the pandemic was not considered, but the informed reader knows better.

The less interested fan can just go by the strong approval of the ruling by USADA Chief Tygart, and the intermediately interested fan can read Tucker's focused explanations and summary.

As for your likelihoods, you are ignoring the IMHO most like causes 1 - 3:

1) designer cocktail The Clear 5.2 (gone wrong, e.g. my putting in too much nandro)
- matches all evidence

2) good old testo (contaminated with nandro) - matches all evidence

3) traditional mix of steroids - matches all evidence

4) nandro (oral or dermal) - matches all evidence

5) burrito, literally ruled out by all independent experts, a lot smarter and more experienced and neutral than you wannabe anonymous LR "expert" and self-declared satellite programmer - not consistent with the evidence

6) supplements, even ruled out by Shelburrito, not even mentioned ever to CAS.

"There are three main possibilities I will consider: 1) oral nandrolone precursor, 2) contaminated supplements, and 3) the greasy burrito."

So you don't even consider doping to be a "possibility". How did this case even proceed to hearing, let alone lead to an unequivocal Court finding against her? I can see that the whole world must be mad except for you.

What now? "bait and switch" in the CAS report? That's a new stupid low from you. "bait and switch" is your method. You should know by now that is was stomach offal, more precisely described as outer stomach muscle and thus meat. Stop trolling.

At least you now realize that your "math" along with your "surely far less than 2" "doesn't really makes much sense", good for you. You are welcome.

However, if you read a few more excretion studies, you get a feel for the total amounts associated with such concentrations, for they are often listed, e.g. in the supplement. For example 10 ng / (ml urine) as peak corresponds normally to over 2 microgram total (only including the excreted amount). A vitamin D capsule for example normally has 25 - 50 microgram of active ingredient, which in itself rules out a "contamination" with nandrolone as cause.

And stop deflecting with the "130-140 ng/ml". Again with your "bait and switch". You know very well that those included testicles, not just stomach, and come from a much larger amount of pork, and therefore had a much higher nandrolone concentration.

Those were not the words of the panel. You are just putting your own words in quotes.

In any case, you have switched to another argument.