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).”
But he did not know it was pig stomach did he?
No he did not. He just repeated Houlihan's claim that it was pig stomach.
So it was either beef, or pig stomach, your choice.
The only pork receipt the cheater provided was for stomach; whether or not she ate pork remained unproven, but the pork available at the food truck neither contained kidneys or testes.
Is that really so hard to understand? No expert lied by repeating the doper's claim to then conclude that it would have been too much nandro, even if she ate uncastrated boar.
No one from her team claimed that the experts lied either, not then, not now.
No he did not. He just repeated Houlihan's claim that it was pig stomach.
So it was either beef, or pig stomach, your choice.
The only pork receipt the cheater provided was for stomach; whether or not she ate pork remained unproven, but the pork available at the food truck neither contained kidneys or testes.
Is that really so hard to understand? No expert lied by repeating the doper's claim to then conclude that it would have been too much nandro, even if she ate uncastrated boar.
No one from her team claimed that the experts lied either, not then, not now.
You said the experts agreed it was pork stomach and as evidence that they did not lie. I said that they, as experts, had not examined the food and thus could not know.
No one actually knew for certain what was the product available.
And thus to refer to the stomach as being evidence they did not lie is one of your greatest intellectual catastrophes.
No he did not. He just repeated Houlihan's claim that it was pig stomach.
So it was either beef, or pig stomach, your choice.
The only pork receipt the cheater provided was for stomach; whether or not she ate pork remained unproven, but the pork available at the food truck neither contained kidneys or testes.
Is that really so hard to understand? No expert lied by repeating the doper's claim to then conclude that it would have been too much nandro, even if she ate uncastrated boar.
No one from her team claimed that the experts lied either, not then, not now.
As we have already seen, 40) was not Houlihan's claim (nor 99)), but the WA/AIU's rewriting of Houlihan's claim. Tucker did not seem to understand that either.
Similarly, Paragraph 99 doesn't say her claim is "stomach meat":
"the food truck pig stomach burritos on its menu on the evening of 14 December 2020 were: i) the buche (maw/pig stomach) burrito; and ii) the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito."
To properly debunk Houlihan's claim requires addressing all the "offal" ingredients that can be found in a pork stomach burrito. I don't see either expert tackling "offal" or any of the ingredients that can be found in chorizo, or the burrito.
Does anyone actually think these experts for the "WA/AIU" are objectively representing science, rather than presenting selective information and biased opinions that favor one party in a dispute?
Similarly, Prof. McGlone concedes that pigs were fed soy, only to downplay that and claim they ate corn anyway. He omitted to address the potential role of chemically castrated pigs, the aging of 6-month old pigs during supply shortages, the delegation of USDA inspection to trained workers, that USDA rules permit putting boars in the food supply based on a sniff test, that some of the duties of USDA inspectors have been delegated to trained workers, that an airborne pandemic might reduce the motivation of workers to sniff, etc.
You might ask why Houlihan's team didn't raise these points at the time, but:
- Maybe they did. The CAS report is an incomplete rewriting of a summary of the claims the CAS Panel found relevant, not a transcript of the proceedings with attached responses and submissions.
- We are talking about the honesty and completeness of the experts.
- These experts have been doing this for decades -- Ayotte was on the IAAF team that convicted Mary Decker Slaney (apparently for having too low epitestosterone), while Houlihan had to get up to speed within a matter of months.
What an irrelevant thread. Houlihan committed a doping violation and none of the delirious and obsessive ramblings here changes that or add anything illuminating to that fact.
What an irrelevant thread. Houlihan committed a doping violation and none of the delirious and obsessive ramblings here changes that or add anything illuminating to that fact.
Says you who has never read the rules as you have said that the rules said that SH was treated fairly.
You always go the same route ; talk uneducated rubbish; call those who have read the rules morons; when intellectually corned then try and shut the thread down.
What an irrelevant thread. Houlihan committed a doping violation and none of the delirious and obsessive ramblings here changes that or add anything illuminating to that fact.
Says you who has never read the rules as you have said that the rules said that SH was treated fairly.
You always go the same route ; talk uneducated rubbish; call those who have read the rules morons; when intellectually corned then try and shut the thread down.
Says you who has never read the rules as you have said that the rules said that SH was treated fairly.
You always go the same route ; talk uneducated rubbish; call those who have read the rules morons; when intellectually corned then try and shut the thread down.
So you confirm what I just said above.
On an other thread you said that Alan Simpson admitted drug use and handed his medal back.Now do you have one bit of evidence for this?
nothing like a Shelby thread to randomly go 10 pages long for no reason.
She lives rent free in everyone's heads because some people are gullible enough to believe her lies.
--lied that Travis Tygart supports and believes her (he does not and has said so)
+1
He just said this in Dominic's podcast:
"The Athletics Integrity Unit that handled it did exactly what they were supposed to do under the rules"
and
"The CAS decision I think in the Houlihan case does a really good job of analyzing the facts and the data and the evidence"
as was pointed out in detail by Tucker.
That's not quite the whole story is it?
Sure the AIU did what it could "under the rules", but since 2015, Tygart has been lobbying for different rules in such circumstances, involving low quantities consistent with ingenstion from meat, supplements, and medicines.
Some of that also came out in the podcast, including the high burden of athletes proving the source of the substance, particularly 6-8 weeks after the fact, when the source may no longer be available for testing, and how unjust it is to treat such cases where the athlete cannot establish the source, the same as intentional doping with intent to enhance performance.
I read it in newspaper reports 55 years ago and unlike you I am neither delirious nor demented.
So you have no evidence then, yet you besmirch the reputation of a fine old gentleman in a Yorkshire nursing home.
Shame on you.
I don't have to produce a minor newspaper report I read over half a century ago after the '66 Commonwealth Games simply because a stupid feck like you didn't.
So you have no evidence then, yet you besmirch the reputation of a fine old gentleman in a Yorkshire nursing home.
Shame on you.
I don't have to produce a minor newspaper report I read over half a century ago after the '66 Commonwealth Games simply because a stupid feck like you didn't.
So your brain now works on the basis that you can say anything that you say appeared in a newspaper and if I can’t find something that I can’t find then I am the stupid one.
So you admit you have no evidence but besmirch reputations.
I don't have to produce a minor newspaper report I read over half a century ago after the '66 Commonwealth Games simply because a stupid feck like you didn't.
So your brain now works on the basis that you can say anything that you say appeared in a newspaper and if I can’t find something that I can’t find then I am the stupid one.
So you admit you have no evidence but besmirch reputations.
I don't have to besmirch yours. You do it all by yourself.
I read about Simpson. I remember it clearly. But since you only read the "rules" I guess you didn't.
So your brain now works on the basis that you can say anything that you say appeared in a newspaper and if I can’t find something that I can’t find then I am the stupid one.
So you admit you have no evidence but besmirch reputations.
I don't have to besmirch yours. You do it all by yourself.
I read about Simpson. I remember it clearly. But since you only read the "rules" I guess you didn't.
But you have no evidence and all reputed records of the time don’t say anything about it.
I have bound copies of Athletics Weekly of the period and there is not a single mention.
Mel Watman’s books say nothing.
When will you admit that your memory has gone or you lied and apologise to the gentleman chair bound in a nursing home.
I don't have to besmirch yours. You do it all by yourself.
I read about Simpson. I remember it clearly. But since you only read the "rules" I guess you didn't.
But you have no evidence and all reputed records of the time don’t say anything about it.
I have bound copies of Athletics Weekly of the period and there is not a single mention.
Mel Watman’s books say nothing.
When will you admit that your memory has gone or you lied and apologise to the gentleman chair bound in a nursing home.
My memory serves me well. But Simpson didn't fail a drug test. He admitted to doping because of conscience, he said. He could have changed his mind and retained the medal while withdrawing his admission. But you would know nothing of this because you only read the "rules".
But you have no evidence and all reputed records of the time don’t say anything about it.
I have bound copies of Athletics Weekly of the period and there is not a single mention.
Mel Watman’s books say nothing.
When will you admit that your memory has gone or you lied and apologise to the gentleman chair bound in a nursing home.
My memory serves me well. But Simpson didn't fail a drug test. He admitted to doping because of conscience, he said. He could have changed his mind and retained the medal while withdrawing his admission. But you would know nothing of this because you only read the "rules".
Are there any limits to your lies?
Why are the medals the same now as on the day.
Why was he still competing after the Comm Games and the next year.
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.