Shelby making 10000 record attempt at the Ten

(slightly rounded) 3:55 / 8:10 / 14:25

I don't think the 1500 or 5000 reflected his ability but still. When Shelby ran 14:23 she should have been in 29:40-50 shape. And I think she was in <14:30 shape last September.

She didn't provide rebuttals. If she had the presumption would have been rebutted. It wasn't. She provided a fanciful excuse that didn't meet the required standard of proof. Like your arguments.

They weren't rebutted. If they had she would have been found innocent. She wasn't. She offered a bs excuse that failed to persuade the panel. That isn't a rebuttal.

He is in the business of lying.

" "offal" could be kidneys, testes, liver, heart, fat, or salivary glands." hahahaha, we all know this. But we also know that the food truck serves stomach offal, not kidney... offal. So, you keep going with your lame deflection.

You are freaking hilarious. Or rather desperate. Those facts about the stomach burrito are of course in the CAS report (although CAS reports, and doesn't quote), and in her interviews. Her documents supporting her claim said that stomach was the source of pork, so, stomach was discussed by everyone, no more no less. Houlihan and her so-called "experts" were ok with that, and even her greedy $$$$ lawyer didn't object, and didn't even try to spin that in this insane press conference. But, here you are, lying through your teeth.

So I looked up hers with LR, and lo and behold, you made the same false claim back in that thread last year, and several posters including Gault pointed out that nonsense of yours.

Question: are you really that forgetful, or is rekrunner a generic Nike PR account, used by many interns who don't bother to read what the others wrote with the same rekrunner username?

Houlihan in said interview (podcast):

The Shelby Houlihan Interview: Lingering Questions from Doping Case, How She Trained for the Last 4 Years, & Her Return to the Sport
"So what we felt like was, okay, the biggest likelihood at the time was maybe this meat from this burrito at a food truck that I ate at the night before."

Now would be a good time for you to accept defeat, and start apologizing.

In her prime, Houlihan was better at 1500m than in the 5000m, so I don’t think she would have had the same ratios between the 5 and 10 of that a 5/10 runner. There was no race that she ran last year that indicated she could have sub-14:30. Having turned 33 will probably be a decline for her this year.

Oh my, are you now saying that she did not rebut, and failed to rebut, but provided rebuttals??? You have a peculiar understanding of the English language.

I'm saying then, and now, that she rebutted several presumptions.

It looks like you and Armstronglivs and the CAS are the ones who need an English lesson.

Cambridge Dictionary: rebut: "to argue that a statement or claim is not true"

Vocabulary.com: rebut versus refute: "To rebut is to try to prove something isn't true, but to refute is to actually prove it isn't."

Apologizing for your misinterpretations? Is she saying here it was not even from "stomach" that everyone talked about?

This quote was not before the CAS, nor WA/AIU, and seems to fall short of "revising this claim to strictly include only pork meat and outer stomach".

And if she had narrowed her claim, surely the CAS would have mentioned her claim accurately after Paragraph 8, or instead of misleading us with paragraph 8.

We know for sure it had "fat" (see Prof. McGlone's testimony).

The presumptions come from WADA.

I would rather rely on evidence and observations to support conclusions, rather than presumptions.

Well we were talking about whether she ate a pork burrito. You said the CAS rejected the argument, but you were wrong, as the CAS accepted the possibility. Then you changed the subject.

Houlihan: "So what we felt like was, okay, the biggest likelihood at the time was maybe this meat from this burrito at a food truck that I ate at the night before."

It was (pork) meat, as Houlhan said, as World Athletics said, as Tucker said, as Gault said during and after the interview, as discussed in the CAS proceeding at length. There is no fooling, and no "bait and switch" from the oh-so-unfair World Athletics run by Nike Coe, just CAS which reports the burrito throughout the report in different but not contradicting ways (pork/meat/stomach/offal/...). That may have confused you, but not CAS, not Houlihan, not World Athletics, not Tucker, not Tygart, and not me. Even you should understand this now.

I rest my case.

The receipt is evidence. Your presumption is that Foolagain's friends aren't trying to help their buddy not get banned for the drugs in her body. Your other presumption is that "a greasy burrito " is from f-Ing Canadian wild boar testes. That is not science. It's a fairy tail.

"her claim said the stomach was the source of pork"? And you claim I write nonsense?

It's unsurprising that I would consistently argue what the CAS told us in the CAS report. In 8. the CAS says "In brief, the Athlete maintained that the 19-NA entered her body by eating a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal and that the burrito was the only possible source of the 19-NA in the Sample." Also in 99: "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." Nothing in the CAS report says her claim was anything less than that.

If this is nonsense, it is not my nonsense.

These documented claims before the WA/AIU and the CAS are only partially rebutted. At the very least, "chorizo (pork sausage)" and "grease" (see 101, and also Prof. McGlone in 107) were also documented. For a complete rebuttal of Houlihan's claim (in 8), we should consider all ingredients in both burritos (in 99), as was documented before the WA/AIU/CAS, even if Houlihan's private investigator did not obtain (or did not ask for) all of the relevant invoices.

Answer: I don't forget what "several posters including Gault pointed out", but surely I similarly rebutted them at that time, and surely I rejected anything that contradicted the details already provided by the CAS. Did you read and forget to include my responses?

Unless it was from "a burrito ... containing pork offal" as the CAS said the Athlete told the AIU, or "pig offal" as Houlihan said they said to the AIU.

This is what I understood then and understand today.

Your case doesn't match the actual claim to the AIU and before the CAS.

Furthermore, the CAS said "the Athlete maintained that the 19-NA entered her body by eating a burrito". The claim did not change.

You would have us believe "at first the athlete claimed pork offal, but as the case progressed, claimed it could only be from pork meat and stomach, and then claimed it was just meat."

No one established "she had a positive test from taking performance enhancement drugs - cheating."

How can anyone know what was never proved?

The receipt is evidence of what she paid for, not what she ate.

Even the CAS was persuaded that what she ate is possibly contrary to what she ordered.

If you want me to accept that Houlihan doped with exogenous nandrolone, someone has to prove that.

If you want me to accept that Houlihan did so intentionally, someone has to prove that.

These "proofs" do not involve the testimony of Houlihan and her eyewitnesses, nor the contents of a greasy burrito.

As you can see just from the responses in the last 2 days from a number of posters, apparently it does matter to them what I think.