Shelby podcast today: "I want all the records", wants world record attempt in mile her first race back

Not at all. Just describe the outcome truthfully and accurately.

Lol dude, because we have learned from the CAS report and her own admission that it was STOMACH offal, poor in nandro even IF it was from an uncastrated boar which it wasnt. Besides it was synthetic nandro no matter how hard you try to deflect. Try to keep up and stop trolling with liver and testes.

How do you prove the existence of something missing? Does anyone doubt that daily supplements/vitamins from December couldn't be consumed within the month between the sample collection, and the first notice of a positive test? What I recall is that, as part of her burden, they made a food log, and they tested all the available vitamins and supplements, which were negative, but that some batches were completely consumed.

Athletes are expected to do due diligence and read the labels, but they are not expected to have all of their supplements tested in a lab. Indeed having a lab available for conducting WADA style tests for athletes is its own cause for concern and suspicion. There is always a risk that contamination occurs, or that ingredients are unlabeled -- WADA advises athletes to take supplements with this heightened risk in mind, and anti-doping organizations may still find the athlete partially at fault for ignoring this risk.

Whatever the CAS accepts often depends on who is on the CAS Panel. It also depends on whether the supplements/vitamins are individually sealed, or loose in a bottle.

To even get to that point, it has to be assumed she received a pork burrito instead of the carne asada one she ordered.

I can't speak for what you've learned.

What I learned from the CAS report is that, according to the CAS, "the Athlete maintained that the 19-NA entered her body by eating a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal". This claim was partly rebutted by the experts for the WA/AIU, arguing nandrolone levels are low in pork meat and stomach, but the overall claim of "burrito from a food truck containing pork offal" remains largely unrebutted.

A greasy burrito also contains fat -- something I learned from Prof. McGlone is rich in nandrolone.

One of the stomach burritos for sale that night also contains chorizo -- which can also contain "pork offal", e.g. liver and testes and salivary glands and heart.

If you are arguing "she would have had to eat 4", you have already made that assumption. I'm saying that that conclusion is wrong, as just consuming a few grams (about 14 grams or half an ounce) of nandrolone rich organs could produce levels of 5.2 ng/ml and 5.8 ng/ml, according to what has been observed "in the literature", including a study by Prof. Ayotte she neglected to include in her literature review.

The argument from the AIU experts falls short, as burritos do not contain just pork meat and stomach as they assumed, but can contain other pork based ingredients too (e.g. chorizo and fat).

But this whole discussion of what Houlihan argued or established or proved or not before the CAS, or the Swiss courts, misses the whole point -- lay-people in this forum are calling her an "intentional doper" when their was never any evidence in or out of the CAS report of "intentional doping" -- intent was presumed and then deemed, but never argued nor established nor proved.

Utter nonsense. What does remain unrebutted, completely, 100%, even by Shelburrito and her slimy lawyer and "experts" and Private Investigator, that the offal from that food truck only contained stomach as the one and only pork ingredient from the Tyson slaughterhouse. Have you still not looked into the CAS report???? Or the pork receipt?????

Whether other offal burritos contain testes or not, is completely irrelevant here.

Give it up, your "arguments" "for" this doper are getting more and more ridiculous from month to month.

Requiring valid evidence makes convicting innocent people more difficult.

She was sooooooo unlucky she ate that burrito.

My arguments have remain virtually unchanged.

I have looked into the CAS report. What I found when I looked in the CAS report were potential ingredients like chorizo (see 99). Also, according to Houlihan, the burrito was greasy (see 43, 100, 101), suggesting fat (see McGlone's concession in 107) was another ingredient. Nothing excludes that the "burrito containing pork offal" (see 8) wasn't garnished with other pork organs, even if this went unmentioned in the CAS report or by any parties in or out of the proceedings.

I should also note that the CAS report is a summary of the decision containing what the CAS Panel felt important to make public. As detailed as it is, it is not complete.

It certainly reduces the cost and burden of prosecution when you can profit from presumptions substituting for real evidence.

I wonder, who here is more qualified than USADA longtime Chief and CEO when he says that the WADA Code modifications in 2015 creates "cases where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong but were treated like intentional cheats".

I could be persuaded that Houlihan intentionally doped if someone could make a strong case for it. The WA/AIU, with its experts, failed to make a strong case. Their best argument, when they are ignoring their own concessions and their own research, appears to be that nandrolone positives from pork would be rare in the US, pre-pandemic -- which explains the low numbers of cases in the USA, apparently ranging from 0 to 1.

Yes. Finally you are admitting that. Now think about why Team Shelby did not come up with this point that you however keep insisting is so important...

Hint 1: they brought up everything that might have potentially help them.

Hint 2: you are wrong.

Get it now?? It's no nonsense!!

It's utter nonsense of course...

You haven't said anything you haven't previously said since the CAS decision nearly 4 years ago and countless threads since. Fortunately, it changes nothing and remains completely irrelevant in the world in which these decisions are made.

Nice Freudian slip. The only thing you got right is that it is no nonsense, unlike your hints.

They did bring up chorizo, which went wholly unrebutted, and even grease, which I learned from Prof. McGlone in the CAS report (have you looked into it?) is high in nandrolone.

Whatever Team Houlihan did or did not bring up misses the whole point that the evidence against her, when it exists, is weak and ambiguous. This weakness was only able to be overcome by presumptions unfavorable to athletes.

If I am wrong, why can no one point me to specific and concrete evidence of "intent". The best way to debunk a claim of no evidence is to produce the evidence.

And yet here we are.

Like everyone else combined, you have provided no evidence of "intentional doping", because you cannot, because there is no evidence of intent.

If the specific evidence existed before the CAS, it should be a simple task to point me to it. And yet everyone has failed in these nearly 4 years.

I find it unfortunate that innocent athletes, in these aforementioned cases where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong, are treated as intentional cheats, for not knowing or being able to establish from where a substance was ingested, and their whole career can be destroyed both by missed opportunities to compete on the highest stage, and in the eyes and minds of persuadable fans, on the strength of presumptions.

Houlihan was banned for 4 years, based on presumptions. That's in the CAS report.

You are wrong about the testes in the 🌯. 100%. Among other things. This is one of your unique baseless hallucinations that you however keep repeating forever because facts don't matter to you. Trolls gotta troll.

And finally, another FACT that you keep ignoring is that the whole CAS panel agreed 100% that the nandro was way too much for 3/4 of that burrito. Yet here you are, wondering out loud in your endless stupity why people think that. 🤔

Most importantly, despite your desperate attempts to rewrite history, Houlihan was rightfully banned for FOUR years for INTENTIONAL doping. Confirmed by long time USADA CEO Tygart, normally your hero Also FACT.

As I said, the same stuff you've argued for the years since the verdict came out. It was lunatic then and still is. For those of us who support the outcome your daft views are agreeably irrelevant and without consequence to the decision.

Have you looked into the CAS report? There you can find testes, as well as liver, and kidneys and salivary glands, and fat -- all concessions of rich sources of nandrolone by team WA/AIU. You will find no argument excluding these ingredients from "a burrito ... containing pork offal" (see Houlihan's claim, paragraph 8). Whatever the CAS Panel decided, as non-experts, it was the AIU expert witnesses who told us where we can find these high levels of nandrolone in a greasy burrito.

You keep repeating what all these people believe, or decided, based on incomplete information, if not supported only by presumptions. The poorly informed opinions of people do not interest me especially when it is not backed by evidence, regardless of their name or title.

What I learned in the CAS report was that she was banned for 4 years based on presumptions with ambiguous evidence, when not completely lacking evidence.

What do you allege Tygart confirmed? Again, the same question: What was the specific and concrete evidence directly applicable to Houlihan that forms the basis of his alleged confirmation?

I cannot be wrong if you cannot disprove anything I have said with real evidence.