Shelby making 10000 record attempt at the Ten

Liar. I pointed you exactly to the quote where Houlihan said it was "meat", literally, as you requested, but that didn't end anything at all. Then you tried to deflect from that fact with 4 - 5 different lengthy posts. You'll just go and on and hope people overlook all the evidence you try to bury by flooding the thread with your nonsense.

No you did not.

I literally requested "a quote from Houlihan that she narrowly revised this claim to strictly include only pork meat and outer stomach, excluding all other organs".

Nothing in that quote says she revised her claim to exclude any other organs, as you have repeatedly insisted was the case.

Your logic says that by this interview (apparently 4 years after the decisions), she also excluded stomach -- contradicting your earlier post that it was discussed so much by all the "experts".

My posts are so lengthy and numerous because there are so many errors in the posts of a handful of posters. For example, Armstronglivs mangled a claim from team World Athletics, putting his own words in quotes, and falsely attributing his words to the CAS Panel -- that took about 3-4 posts and he is still tripling down on his false attribution.

It does make me weep that you missed the point. What am I supposed to read there?

I can find similar words rearranged differently, but the CAS attributed this phrase to the "Claimant", i.e. "World Athletics".

Armstronglivs said his jumbled words he put between quotes were "in the words of the panel". In reality, his quote is a misquote of the "Claimant" falsely attributed to the CAS panel.

So there is no point. Everyone who can think with any degree of clarity would agree with the statement, but you choose to obfuscate the issue with all of your verbal gymnastics, most of which amount to you landing hard and awkwardly on the pummel horse.

Why do you guys keep rehashing the burrito saga? It’s been almost 5 years since the CAS report was released and opinions about her culpability were cemented long ago.

You can more easily end this by giving up on your feeble excuses for the convicted doper. It is in the decision. Go read it.

Rekrunner goes home DEVASTATED 🌯

theguardian.com

Cas says ‘close to zero’ probability burrito led to Shelby Houlihan’s failed drugs test

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/seaningle

A Cas report on the four-year drugs ban for the US athlete Shelby Houlihan has ruled there is ‘very close to zero’ probability she ingested nandrolone from a contaminated pork burrito, as she had claimed

Open link

The probability that a contaminated pork burrito led to the US Olympic 1500m medal prospect Shelby Houlihan’s failed drugs test is “very close to zero”, the court of arbitration for sport has ruled.

Cas dismissed Houlihan’s claims, saying: “The explanation presupposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is (very) close to zero."

So did she refute it?

So Rekrunner goes home DEVASTATED 🌯 - as the other fella wrote. He is the only one who still thinks it wasn't a stomach burrito, despite all the evidence.

But you are right - he enjoys getting corrected, as much as others enjoy correcting him. Win win.

I think most here tend to accept these statements as is, without giving it much critical thought.

The consequence of the statement, is that nandrolone positives from pork consumption are rare across the United States. This general likelihood tells us nothing about individual cases already tested positive for the presence of nandrolone.

Don't believe everything you read. Looks like Sean Ingle commits the same false attribution mistake. But at least the quotes are now accurate.

That's the problem of not going directly to the original source for accurate information, where the CAS attributes these statements to "the Claimant", i.e. World Athletics.

I recall saying it was a stomach burrito, one of "i) the buche (maw/pig stomach) burrito; and ii) the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito."

I'm always happy to be corrected, but that is more rare than nandrolone in a greasy burrito.

Nice dodge and weave.

Most all of my ideas come straight from the CAS report, or the WADA documents, or from the referenced research.

It would seem that she did persuade one of the CAS Panelists that either the AAF was probably not properly reported pursuant to the ISL, or that the ADRV was probably not properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the ISRM, or both.

Finally. Now you only need to understand the strict liability principle, here meaning that Shelby needed to provide evidence for the ingredients.

Recall for next time that she only provided evidence for butt and stomach as pork ingredients. Then you might actually stop blaming World Athletics for correctly calling it meat and or stomach. Also remember that Shelby herself called it "meat".

No "bait and switch" from World Athletics, just factually discussing the evidence.

On the other hand, I am not really a fan of that organization, so go ahead and accuse them of colluding and tricking and fooling along with the AIU to get clean American Nike runners banned for some weird reason...

You have ducked the question. What she had to refute was the presumption of intent. She failed to do so. Even though you are the most practiced liar on these threads there are truths you can't avoid.