Nike PR wrote:
I have never ever said that. So much for you wanting to stop lying.
And what are even talking about with the offal test? Houlihan had not "the offal in the burrito" tested as I said, but the burrito, not the offal? You are the weirdest poster ever. You are also wrong again - she had only "the meats" analyzed, not the whole burrito.
All your other questions are obvious nonsense. And you still have not understood that "far less than 1 in 10,000" does not equal ZERO less than 1 in 10,000. Stop deflecting and start thinking.
Right. You never said it. I must be mixing you up with another anonymous handle. Even if the CAS didn't believe pork was established as the more likely source, there is no reason to prefer one alternative suggestion (oral precursor) presented without evidence over another alternative (contaminated vitamins/supplements) presented without evidence.
So I gather you can't really explain "the analysis of the offal did not show kidney or testicles". But now you say I'm wrong because she only analyzed "the meats"? Your statement makes even less sense then. "The analysis of the meats did not show kidney or testicles". Why would it?
It looks like Shelby was not consistent with her use of the word "meats". At one point she talks about "stomach" and "pork butt" and then says "both of the meats ...".
But for sure, if the nandrolone came from a burrito containing offal, they should have tested the meat and the offal, and the grease and the chorizo. And the analysis would show nandrolone, not meat or kidneys or testicles.
I'm not deflecting and I am thinking. I think it's odd for an "expert" to say "far less than 1 in 10,000" if he really meant "1 in 5,000,000". Do you think that kind of thing happens frequently from experts in the literature?