Shelby making 10000 record attempt at the Ten

I understand the CAS to say that her claim was "a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal". Her own timeline says she told the AIU "we believe the source of nandrolone was from pig offal". So the rest of your paragraph doesn't follow. According to WA/AIU's own experts, offal could be kidneys, testes, liver, heart, fat, or salivary glands.

This pokes some pretty big holes in the airtight case.

1-3 was "not even mentioned ever to CAS."

I mentioned 4-6.

5 was not literally ruled out.

6 was the option Tygart thought was most likely. They couldn't bring 6 to the CAS as none of her sample retests tested positive, but it remains a non-zero possibility.

I understand the CAS to say that her claim was "a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal". Her own timeline says she told the AIU "we believe the source of nandrolone was from pig offal". Can you provide a quote from Houlihan that she narrowly revised this claim to strictly include only pork meat and outer stomach, excluding all other organs? Otherwise "pork meat and stomach" is the deflection from Houlihan's claim.

According to WA/AIU's own experts, "offal" could be kidneys, testes, liver, heart, fat, or salivary glands. Fat is relevant for a greasy burrito.

The WADA TD says that concentration values are usually in the low, less than 10 ng/ml range, and exceptionally much higher -- and points us to Prof. Ayotte's study which published 130-140 ng/ml. I don't see any need to read more excretion studies when the information is all right there in the WADA TD and Prof. Ayotte's own literature.

Shelby herself now thinks the burrito excuse is ridiculous and she doesn’t believe in it anymore.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=13354402

Said before say it again

it is VERY telling that Shelby is unsponsored more than a year into her return. she's also one of the most successful us distance runners since her return.

the resistance may be quiet, but it exists. There's a reason sponsors don't want to touch her.

Those are the words of the panel and the evidence presented before it, and the issue remains your denial of the facts.

That weren't rebutted.

It is interesting how you make predictions and then you just disappear after you are wrong. Anyone can do that.

I don't get how she ran so badly

I knew someone who ran low 29:40s while BLOWING UP who had a slower 1500 and 5000 PR (though admittedly a far faster 3000). She ran 30:50.

That's not really what she said. From the original article:

"Houlihan understands how the burrito defense came off. "It sounds kind of ridiculous," she says."

This doesn't express her personal belief, but her understanding of others' belief.

You've completely abandoned your first argument. I always interpret your changing the subject as a tacit concession that even you know you irreperably lost the first one.

And you are wrong here. No, the panel did not say those words -- you scrambled words around and put your own words of your own misunderstanding in quotes, falsely attributing it to the CAS panel.

You are misquoting the "Claimant's submissions", i.e. team World Athletics.

On the contary, they were rebutted.

And the presumptions were never proven to be true, or more likely.

Yes. This is good news. All this propaganda here and elsewhere does not help the drug cheat to find a sponsor, not even Nike or Chipotle. Hooray for the clean sport!

Look at the first page to see how letsrun thinks: the burrito poem, most liked post in this thread, got over 200 upvotes, lol. No one really believes the drug was in the stomach burrito.

You are playing your semantics game again, and even there you fail, just like Team Houlihan: they tried to rebut, but failed.

The majority of the Panel does not agree with the Respondent’s assertion that the
Laboratory departed from the ISL / TD2021NA and, thus, finds that the Respondent failed to rebut the presumption that the AAF was properly reported and notified by the
Laboratory.

84. Based on the above, a majority of the Panel finds that the Respondent neither rebuts the presumption that the AAF was properly reported pursuant to the ISL, nor rebuts the presumption that the ADRV was properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the ISRM.

Do you understand "neither rebuts" and "nor rebuts"? That means, did not rebut, twice.

Anything else you "misunderstand" or want to "paraphrase" today?

Houlihan’s 1500m and 5000m PRs are from 2019 and 2020, respectively. Performance wise, her 14:45 from last year is equivalent to about 30:30 and the 10000m is probably not within her range.

Your acquaintance would have needed 14:20 fitness run 29:40 and maybe 14:10 to do so while blowing up. What was his 3000m PR, anyway?

I didn't say her rebuttals met the standard required of her, but she did provide rebuttals.

And here "a majority of the panel" means her rebuttals were successful at least with a minority of the CAS Panel.

And again, these presumptions were never proven to be true, or even more likely. The skeptic who questions these presumptions will find the remaining evidence and arguments insufficient.

It's all about what the public believes, isn't it.

Now you want your presumptions (a guy on the internet ) to be stronger than their presumptions (a professional panel)

It really was. Everyone, including herself, knew she had a positive test from taking performance enhancement drugs - cheating.

I haven't abandoned anything. Houlihan is a convicted doper and you remain in denial of it. Keep up. And, yes, the panel said her defense was "a cascading series of improbabilities". "Near zero" probability in the views of an expert. Near zero applies to the credibility of your arguments.