I do not have any proof the experts were not dishonest.Ayotte was accused of misleading in another case. It is still astonishing that she was allowed to provide expert testimony on matters she was not independent on.
I have never said that the pork was not stomach ; why do you make things up all the time?
You are making stuff up again. That was rekrunner's false claim, not yours, and I never said otherwise.
That's on Shelby. And you! Have you never read that, although it was discussed several times?
I still require help in seeing what you rely on.And perhaps you could re write the above in English.
That that file won't open, is Shelby's fault, not mine. After all, it is on her page.
You should have opened and read that file before, because it was referred to several times. But you chose to ignore it for months, which was obviously your decision, not mine.
We were discussing whether or not the experts were dishonest, and whether or not the pork was stomach. I proved to you that the experts were not dishonest, and the pork was indeed stomach. Agreed?
I do not have any proof the experts were not dishonest.
I provided proof that the experts - not just Professor Ayotte - were honest when they claimed it was pork stomach. Agreed?
I still require help in seeing what you rely on.And perhaps you could re write the above in English.
That that file won't open, is Shelby's fault, not mine. After all, it is on her page.
You should have opened and read that file before, because it was referred to several times. But you chose to ignore it for months, which was obviously your decision, not mine.
This is not the way debate goes.
I invite you to explain your point and you refuse to.
I can only conclude that you involved con falsehoods; shame on you .
That that file won't open, is Shelby's fault, not mine. After all, it is on her page.
You should have opened and read that file before, because it was referred to several times. But you chose to ignore it for months, which was obviously your decision, not mine.
This is not the way debate goes.
I invite you to explain your point and you refuse to.
I can only conclude that you involved con falsehoods; shame on you .
What? I have given you the source, not for the first time, mind you. I have not refused anything. Shame on you with all your false accusations.
I do not have any proof the experts were not dishonest.Ayotte was accused of misleading in another case. It is still astonishing that she was allowed to provide expert testimony on matters she was not independent on.
I have never said that the pork was not stomach ; why do you make things up all the time?
You are making stuff up again. That was rekrunner's false claim, not yours, and I never said otherwise.
I do not have any proof the experts were not dishonest.
I provided proof that the experts - not just Professor Ayotte - were honest when they claimed it was pork stomach. Agreed?
They did not have a clue it was pork stomach.
Why do you risk looking like an inadequate with such a ridiculous statement.Are you really sure you have a job or do you just leave the house to con people?
I provided proof that the experts - not just Professor Ayotte - were honest when they claimed it was pork stomach. Agreed?
They did not have a clue it was pork stomach.
Why do you risk looking like an inadequate with such a ridiculous statement.Are you really sure you have a job or do you just leave the house to con people?
Seriously? Last try, for example, as Tucker correctly wrote on behalf of letsrun (!): “For instance, in Point 107, the agriculture expert for World Athletics explains that pig stomach has one of the lowest androgen levels of any organ. Importantly, Houlihan’s claim is that she ate pig stomach (see points 40 and 99).”
As they did not know it was pork stomach how could they be honest?
How ?
They did know it could only have been pork stomach - as in Houlihan's claim - or a beef burrito, as shown on Houlihan's receipt. I have demonstrated about seven times on the last few pages.
Rekrunner provided no reference as per usual. And he flat out lied as per usual: the food truck used stomach meat, so stomach meat was discussed. No omission, no dishonesty from any expert, no objection from Team Shelby during or after the hearing. See e.g. Shelby's own "Official-Case-Timeline-Paul-revisions", or the CAS report, or again Tucker (referring to CAS):
For instance, in Point 107, the agriculture expert for World Athletics explains that pig stomach has one of the lowest androgen levels of any organ. Importantly, Houlihan’s claim is that she ate pig stomach (see points 40 and 99).
That is rich coming from you. I have provided many references many times in many threads. It is not "per usual" that I don't.
Houlihan's claim can be found described in Paragraph 8, not Paragraphs 40 (from the Claimaint) or 107 (from the Claimant's expert) or 105 (from the CAS Panel). Houlihan's claim: "the Athlete maintained that the 19-NA entered her body by eating a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal ..." Note it does not say "pork meat" or "pork stomach meat", but "burrito ... containing pork offal".
Fast forward to Paragraph 40, and the "Claimant" has essentially rewritten the claim, in point 5, saying "the pork product that the Athlete allegedly ate is pork stomach". The Claimant is plainly lying here.
Then in point 6, they build on the altered claim to say Houlihan's value was "2-3 times higher than the highest values reported in the scientific literature". This is essentially repeated by Prof. Ayotte in Paragraph 111, again referring to "meat or stomach".
This suggests the lie actually comes from Prof. Ayotte. She omits to discuss her own literature backing up Houlian's claim of a burrito containing "pork offal".
The Claimant and their expert, through this lie, have effectively debunked a claim that Houlihan did not make. Houlihan's claim of "19-NA ... by eating a burrito ... containing pork offal" is essentially unrebutted.
You might think they address pork offal elsewhere, but the only mention of "offal" by the Claimant is in paragraph 40, point 5, where they do not rebut, but concede that "offal" is where the nandrolone can be found in high quantities -- consistent with Houlihan's claim.
What does Prof. Ayotte think of "2-3 times ... the scientific literature" with respect to offal?
Ayotte's 2008 paper shows 130 ng/ml in one subject: "Excretion of norsteroids’ phase II metabolites of different origin in human". This is about 22x Houlihan's limit.
In another 2006 paper, Ayotte wrote about 160 ng/ml: "Significance of 19‐norandrosterone in athletes' urine samples". This is about 27x Houlihan's limit.
The World Athletics, through the experts, specifically Prof. Ayotte, clearly misrepresented the relevant scientific literature, by a factor of 50.
As they did not know it was pork stomach how could they be honest?
How ?
They did know it could only have been pork stomach - as in Houlihan's claim - or a beef burrito, as shown on Houlihan's receipt. I have demonstrated about seven times on the last few pages.
So they did not know it was stomach; did they?
And now you add to your strange thinking that they also knew that it was beef.
Now if they had the food and analysed it that we be an expert report as apposed to bring based on what may be a false receipt .
Rekrunner provided no reference as per usual. And he flat out lied as per usual: the food truck used stomach meat, so stomach meat was discussed. No omission, no dishonesty from any expert, no objection from Team Shelby during or after the hearing. See e.g. Shelby's own "Official-Case-Timeline-Paul-revisions", or the CAS report, or again Tucker (referring to CAS):
That is rich coming from you. I have provided many references many times in many threads. It is not "per usual" that I don't.
Houlihan's claim can be found described in Paragraph 8, not Paragraphs 40 (from the Claimaint) or 107 (from the Claimant's expert) or 105 (from the CAS Panel). Houlihan's claim: "the Athlete maintained that the 19-NA entered her body by eating a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal ..." Note it does not say "pork meat" or "pork stomach meat", but "burrito ... containing pork offal".
Fast forward to Paragraph 40, and the "Claimant" has essentially rewritten the claim, in point 5, saying "the pork product that the Athlete allegedly ate is pork stomach". The Claimant is plainly lying here.
Then in point 6, they build on the altered claim to say Houlihan's value was "2-3 times higher than the highest values reported in the scientific literature". This is essentially repeated by Prof. Ayotte in Paragraph 111, again referring to "meat or stomach".
This suggests the lie actually comes from Prof. Ayotte. She omits to discuss her own literature backing up Houlian's claim of a burrito containing "pork offal".
The Claimant and their expert, through this lie, have effectively debunked a claim that Houlihan did not make. Houlihan's claim of "19-NA ... by eating a burrito ... containing pork offal" is essentially unrebutted.
You might think they address pork offal elsewhere, but the only mention of "offal" by the Claimant is in paragraph 40, point 5, where they do not rebut, but concede that "offal" is where the nandrolone can be found in high quantities -- consistent with Houlihan's claim.
What does Prof. Ayotte think of "2-3 times ... the scientific literature" with respect to offal?
Ayotte's 2008 paper shows 130 ng/ml in one subject: "Excretion of norsteroids’ phase II metabolites of different origin in human". This is about 22x Houlihan's limit.
In another 2006 paper, Ayotte wrote about 160 ng/ml: "Significance of 19‐norandrosterone in athletes' urine samples". This is about 27x Houlihan's limit.
The World Athletics, through the experts, specifically Prof. Ayotte, clearly misrepresented the relevant scientific literature, by a factor of 50.
Why do you risk looking like an inadequate with such a ridiculous statement.Are you really sure you have a job or do you just leave the house to con people?
Seriously? Last try, for example, as Tucker correctly wrote on behalf of letsrun (!): “For instance, in Point 107, the agriculture expert for World Athletics explains that pig stomach has one of the lowest androgen levels of any organ. Importantly, Houlihan’s claim is that she ate pig stomach (see points 40 and 99).”
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.