"Dang. I'm running really well these last few months. My face looks really good, it's kind of taller and sleeker, and my hairline looks really cool. I look kind of like a sick action figure marine, and I got abs and shoulder cuts going. Training is paying off innit? I might just be able to run a 14 minute barrier.... let's just see how this dumb virus plays out..."
-Shelby's inner monologue re training before disaster struck
You are unbelievable. Browsing through this thread alone, I notice that you have been several times reminded that the invoice for the "offal" was for meat and stomach. Therefore that was discussed. Logic 101. It is absolutely irrelevant for this case what other offals can be made of. Yet you keep mentioning the mysterious potential ingredients of other offals, just to deflect from this drug cheat's obvious guilt.
Did you ever read Tucker's explanations? For example this one:
That shouldn't be too hard to understand. Notice also "with reasons for this", before you go on and on again with your favorite new word "unsubstantiated".
But ultimately I agree with your ending: Yay! Hooray for the sport! All is well here, one drug cheat got banned.
You carry on, keep deflecting, try to keep the discussion of this drug cheat running forever. Hooray for the sport!
Who reminded me of what? Several anonymous posters? Several times? Unbelievable. I notice that Ross Tucker didn't say anything about the relevance of receipts.
This "must only be meat and stomach" argument, relies on an invalid assumption that the only possible ingredients in a burrito are the ones with receipts. The relevance of "what other offals can be made of" is irrelevant (not to mention incoherent). What is highly relevant is what the burrito was actually made of. We know that there is evidence before the CAS of "grease" and "chorizo" in the two stomach burritos for sale that day. These ingredients remain essentially unrebutted. The "Expert witness" Prof. McGlone informed us that fat is a good source of nandrolone, and pork sausage can contain a mix of many things, including pork offal. Nothing before the CAS excludes or disproves the meat and stomach and chorizo being mixed with chopped and diced heart, liver, and kidneys, or that the nandrolone was in the pork grease from the meat.
I see Ross Tucker as an unnecessary middleman applying his own personal filters and bias and misunderstandings. He dumbs it down mainly for those who were confused by the CAS report, and the technical jargon and dualing expert speculation. But that doesn't mean Ross got everything right. For example, you quoted Ross quoting Prof. McGlone, who misquoted Houlihan. Ross, after reviewing the case for a month, got Houlihan's claim wrong. Did he not read the report up to paragraph 8 on page 2? From Houlihan's timeline, we can see the claim from the beginning: "January 20th: ... email to AIU stating we believe the source of nandrolone was from pig offal." How can I rely on the rest of his opinion to be accurate?
This whole discussion about "androgens" is yet another deceptive bait-and-switch employed by the "expert witnesses". This case was specifically about nandrolone, not any other androgens. We know from the CAS report that "The report on androgens in pork produced by Prof McGlone is not relevant because while the report mentions estimated concentrations for various steroid hormones, the report does not mention the concentration of 19-norsteroids or precursors, which is the focus in this case."
If Shelby was doping intentionally, wouldn't we expect her to be using every advantage possible, like super spikes? The fact that she wasn't might suggest that her performance wasn't solely dependent on any enhancements, but it's still an interesting question to consider.
"Dang. I'm running really well these last few months. My face looks really good, it's kind of taller and sleeker, and my hairline looks really cool. I look kind of like a sick action figure marine, and I got abs and shoulder cuts going. Training is paying off innit? I might just be able to run a 14 minute barrier.... let's just see how this dumb virus plays out..."
-Shelby's inner monologue re training before disaster struck
USADA's web site shows her being tested in all 4 quarters of 2020. Now, to argue the other side a bit, if USADA was notifying athletes in advance when the tests will be then that makes sense. AIU comes in unannounced and catches her on Dec 15. But in that elaborate plan with specialty nandrolone, why nandrolone instead of testosterone and EPO alone? Is there anything special about nandrolone that would carry over into the 2021 Olympic trials and Olympics the following year?
Gullible? No, I live in reality. Asada burritos from the same establishment can be greasy during one visit and not so much the next time. Shelby admitted she ate about 3/4 of the said greasy burrito. Again, if it was offal, it would have been the TASTE, not the grease she noticed. And after one bite it would have been obvious.
Speaking of presumptions, you've spent 4 years defending her based on the burrito story. A story with more holes than swiss cheese. So, yes, the balance of probability says she doped, in a sport rife with doping.
This raises the question -- what can be concluded without any presumptions?
Again, your personal experiences about greasy beef is all a story according to "almost boomer". Sorry if I put a pause on these arguments. But if you insist on beef, I saw recently that a tennis player tested positive from nandrolone in beef, with a level of 135 ng/ml, and was acquitted. Maybe it wasn't pork, but greasy beef.
But the "expert witnesses" make the burrito story credible: Prof. McGlone concedes increased soy in the diets during the pandemic, which would produce the observed CIR result; Both Profs. McGlone and Ayotte explain organs like heart, kidney, liver, salivary glands, testes, and even fat, would have more nandrolone than meat or stomach, and would produce what WADA calls "usually" in the "low, less than 10 ng/ml range", and sometimes significantly higher (see Prof. Ayotte's research reporting values of 130 ng/ml and 160 ng/ml).
The holes you believe you see rely on a set of unproven, if not invalid, assumptions that the pork must have been meat or stomach from a 6-month old cryptorchid, falsely excluding other pork scenarios during the pandemic, e.g. pork offal in a greasy burrito from a 9-month old immuno-castrated boar, fed a diet of increased soy (or other C3 plants: barley, oats, rice and wheat, alfalfa (lucerne), cotton, Eucalyptus, sunflower, soybeans, sugar beets, potatoes, tobacco, Chlorella, spinach).
As many holes as you think there are in the burrito story, there are swiss cheese holes in every suggested and non-suggested alternative. There is simply no evidence before the CAS of intentional doping, beyond a suggestion that a product exists on Amazon that can allegedly produce the same CIR result.
Even if the "experts" disproved the burrito story, which they did not, this doesn't begin to prove any alternative. Failing to establish nandrolone in the burrito gives me no reason to conclude that one suggested alternative of doping with a nandrolone preparation purchased from Amazon, is more likely than nandrolone from pork ingestion, or as you suggest, from beef, or the more common alternative: unlabelled contamination from vitamins or supplements.
But the experts didn't disprove nandrolone from a burrito -- all alternatives remain possible.
I've spent 4-years attacking a process that similarly draws conclusions based on "a story with more holes than swiss cheese" spackled over with a set of presumptions.
As a followup, I didn’t see any smoking guns in the movie (as it pertains to the Montreal WADA lab director, Ayotte), but maybe I missed it.
The bigger smoking gun in my opinion is that it was shown (with the help of an athlete’s legal team) that she provided false testimony. She was allowed to keep her position somehow, to be the Lab Director who made key testing decisions about another athlete represented by the same legal team and then be an “expert” witness against that athlete.
There appears to be no functioning ethical standards for WADA personnel.
The biggest WADA surprise is coming very soon for U.S.-based athletes who test positive due to *possible* meat contamination. Don’t buy meat retail (from grocery stores).
There is no smoking gun as such in Icarus, but here is what she prioritized in that moment. The transcript doesn't do it justice. As a long time anti-doping scientist spending her career trying to improve tests for detection, she was receiving a detailed spreadsheet with valuable intel containing the names of all the Russian dopers, and the techniques that Russians used to manipulate the samples to beat the tests, and her first questions are about emotions: Does Rodchenkov feel sorrow? Does Rodchenkov think she is happy? Or that athletes are happy? Credit to Bryan Fogel for reminding her of the big picture -- Rodchenkov gave up his whole life, his wife, his kids, his pension, etc., and was still risking his life, to provide these anti-doping scientists valuable intel.
As concerning as Prof. Ayotte's misrecollection of her own lab's results she believed to be true were, I'm wondering why she is permitted to be an expert witness at all, for cases like Lawson's and Houlihan's, when the first question in all these cases concerns the credibility and quality and adherence to the standards, of the work performed by the lab -- especially when I learned that WADA Lab employees are forbidden by contract to testify against any WADA Lab.
"Too early to tell" - for a convicted doping offender (nothing ambiguous about her failed test) who failed to produce an adequate defence to consuming a banned substance - which was undisputed. You are beyond belief.
As the CAS made clear, she was only convicted based on presumptions. Under a presumption of innocent until proven guilty, she is innocent.
The science says her results do not necessarily indicate doping. The CAS was split on that decision.
She wasn't convicted on a presumption; she was convicted on a failed drug test. In addition to that, she failed to rebut a presumption of intent. After considering all the evidence - that included an ingested banned substance, for which there was no doubt, and her attempted defence - the Court decided she committed an intentional ADRV. You can't even grasp the basics of the decision.
Only a masochist or a fool would seek to deprive you of your ignorance about doping in the sport. Over a billion Euros spent by athletes on the doping black market every year and antidoping bodies like WADA failing to make a dent in that trade are meaningless to a doping denier such as yourself.
The lack of substantial information and specific details renders it meaningless to everyone.
A billion Euros in black market peds annually is anything but lacking "substance", and so is the existence of antidoping bodies whose role it is to try to prevent that - but fail to do so, as the scale of the practice shows.
I'm not here to educate you. A complete waste of time.
Thank you for admitting you have no evidence. You are dismissed.
I don't admit that but you aren't intelligent enough to see that. I simply say trying to inform one as obviously ignorant as you are isn't worth the effort.
That's bizarre that they can't testify against their lab but also not surprising. It all looks political. There's blatant flaws in testing details:
Primary biomarkers in biological passport can be manipulated with hydration, and 2-hour delay of sample collection after exercise aids this tactic. There are really good biomarkers that can be taken with dried blood spots, but apparently those are too good to actually use.
Lab equipment sensitivity requirement is weak for molidustat.
No procedures or threshold limits for catching athletes for AICAR despite advanced research.
It's like gatekeepers in place to control which athletes can win, or records need to be broken to sell stuff. Fishy business.
As the CAS made clear, she was only convicted based on presumptions. Under a presumption of innocent until proven guilty, she is innocent.
The science says her results do not necessarily indicate doping. The CAS was split on that decision.
She wasn't convicted on a presumption; she was convicted on a failed drug test. In addition to that, she failed to rebut a presumption of intent. After considering all the evidence - that included an ingested banned substance, for which there was no doubt, and her attempted defence - the Court decided she committed an intentional ADRV. You can't even grasp the basics of the decision.
Unfortunately for you, the CAS Decision, and the WADA Code explicitly lists the presumptions clearly. In addition to the "presumption of intent" that railroads athletes to 4-year bans, I count three presumptions directly connected to the interpretation and consequences of the failed drug test.
The evidence the CAS considered is incomplete, leading to weak conclusions supported by presumptions rather than specific and concrete evidence of either doping, or intent.
Thank you for admitting you have no evidence. You are dismissed.
I don't admit that but you aren't intelligent enough to see that. I simply say trying to inform one as obviously ignorant as you are isn't worth the effort.
I am intelligent enough to to post 50 times a day here. Unlike you.
