More deflections. No one did. But you, and only you, blamed the Claimant for "saying "meat" and/or "stomach"", calling it "bait and switch" for inexplicable reasons. Maybe for the fun of it, so some posters would point out your nonsense?
I gave the explanations. I can't speak for the gullibility of others.
Team Houlihan is consistent throughout the CAS report talking about both meat and offal, in an inclusive way. Both the AIU and the CAS were aware of this. There is no hint that they chose to exclude any specific organs from their initial claim to the AIU, but rather, as the CAS reported, "maintained" the claim of "burrito ... containing pork offal".
Yet the Claimant writes "the pork product that the Athlete allegedly ate is pork stomach". From the CAS report, no one alleged this other than the "Claimant".
Prof. Ayotte represents to the CAS that Houlihan's level exceeded the literature by a factor of 2-3, which contradicts WADA, who calls her levels "usual" and "in the low range", while hiding her own literature from the CAS, which, although the sample sizes are small, supports both Houlihan's levels and CIR, in line with Houlihan's claim of "pig offal".
More deflections. No one did. But you, and only you, blamed the Claimant for "saying "meat" and/or "stomach"", calling it "bait and switch" for inexplicable reasons. Maybe for the fun of it, so some posters would point out your nonsense?
I gave the explanations. I can't speak for the gullibility of others.
Team Houlihan is consistent throughout the CAS report talking about both meat and offal, in an inclusive way. Both the AIU and the CAS were aware of this. There is no hint that they chose to exclude any specific organs from their initial claim to the AIU, but rather, as the CAS reported, "maintained" the claim of "burrito ... containing pork offal".
Yet the Claimant writes "the pork product that the Athlete allegedly ate is pork stomach". From the CAS report, no one alleged this other than the "Claimant".
Prof. Ayotte represents to the CAS that Houlihan's level exceeded the literature by a factor of 2-3, which contradicts WADA, who calls her levels "usual" and "in the low range", while hiding her own literature from the CAS, which, although the sample sizes are small, supports both Houlihan's levels and CIR, in line with Houlihan's claim of "pig offal".
All wrong. As demonstrated several times, by several people, not just in this thread. It's not everyone including the experts on both sides, and Tucker, and Tygart, and Gault, and Houlihan, who are gullible; it's you who insists to be right with your unique paraphrasing of the facts.
The last paragraph is one of your usual tricks. That WADA calls a level "in the low range" does not mean it's allowed. Everything above 2 ng/ml can be sanctioned with a 4 year ban for intentional doping, like Houlihan was for her 5.5 ng/ml - with the approval of the lenient Tygart.
Who says "pork ingredient" must be "a piece of pig", and not pork sausage? It is your question that is wrong.
The word ingredient. Oxford definition for "ingredient":
"any of the foods or substances that are combined to make a particular dish."
Looks like I need to dumb it down for you, and explain it without using the technical term "ingredient":
1) Houlihan claimed the nandrolone may have come from offal.
2) Houlihan provided only evidence for butt (meat) and stomach (outer stomach muscle aka meat) as pieces of pig used by the food truck - for offal and chorizo alike.
3) There was no evidence for any other pieces of pork used by the food truck.
4) Therefore only stomach/meat was considered as potential sources for the nandrolone during the whole CAS proceeding.
5) Therefore no one from Houlihan's team, not even her $$$$$$ lawyer, and no expert ever consulted on this, argued that other pieces of pig should have been considered as a source for her nandrolone.
6) Therefore there was no bait and switch from the Claimant, who, like the Defendant and her so-called "experts", called it meat and or stomach.
7) Therefore the CAS panel came to the correct conclusions with two 3 : 0 votes that:
Thus, based on the above, the Panel finds it possible but highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels. The Panel – on a balance of probabilities – is not ready to accept this.
and
The Panel finds it possible but improbable that the ingestion of boar meat (cryptorchid) would have resulted in the urinary concentration found in the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples.
8) Therefore (and for several other reasons!) Tygart was correct in stating "The CAS decision I think in the Houlihan case does a really good job of analyzing the facts and the data and the evidence".
9) Therefore (and for several other reasons!) Tucker was correct in stating "With confidence, I’d say “not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion."."
10) Therefore (and for several other reasons!) you have no case.
All wrong. As demonstrated several times, by several people, not just in this thread. It's not everyone including the experts on both sides, and Tucker, and Tygart, and Gault, and Houlihan, who are gullible; it's you who insists to be right with your unique paraphrasing of the facts.
The last paragraph is one of your usual tricks. That WADA calls a level "in the low range" does not mean it's allowed. Everything above 2 ng/ml can be sanctioned with a 4 year ban for intentional doping, like Houlihan was for her 5.5 ng/ml - with the approval of the lenient Tygart.
All of the demonstrations were flawed and/or wrong, as I have rebutted so many times in this thread and others.
When WADA says "in the low range", they are talking about pork offal consumption, which is allowed regardless of level, as it is endogenous by WADA's definition.
Who says "pork ingredient" must be "a piece of pig", and not pork sausage? It is your question that is wrong.
The word ingredient. Oxford definition for "ingredient":
"any of the foods or substances that are combined to make a particular dish."
Looks like I need to dumb it down for you, and explain it without using the technical term "ingredient":
1) Houlihan claimed the nandrolone may have come from offal.
2) Houlihan provided only evidence for butt (meat) and stomach (outer stomach muscle aka meat) as pieces of pig used by the food truck - for offal and chorizo alike.
3) There was no evidence for any other pieces of pork used by the food truck.
4) Therefore only stomach/meat was considered as potential sources for the nandrolone during the whole CAS proceeding.
5) Therefore no one from Houlihan's team, not even her $$ lawyer, and no expert ever consulted on this, argued that other pieces of pig should have been considered as a source for her nandrolone.
6) Therefore there was no bait and switch from the Claimant, who, like the Defendant and her so-called "experts", called it meat and or stomach.
7) Therefore the CAS panel came to the correct conclusions with two 3 : 0 votes that:
Thus, based on the above, the Panel finds it possible but highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels. The Panel – on a balance of probabilities – is not ready to accept this.
and
The Panel finds it possible but improbable that the ingestion of boar meat (cryptorchid) would have resulted in the urinary concentration found in the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples.
8) Therefore (and for several other reasons!) Tygart was correct in stating "The CAS decision I think in the Houlihan case does a really good job of analyzing the facts and the data and the evidence".
9) Therefore (and for several other reasons!) Tucker was correct in stating "With confidence, I’d say “not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion."."
10) Therefore (and for several other reasons!) you have no case.
Is that still too complicated?
You did make the arguments dumber.
So we can say "chorizo (pork sausage)" is a pork ingredient in one of the pork stomach burritos served that night.
2) Not quite true. Not sure that pork meat evidence and stomach evidence was meant to cover chorizo, or exclude other offal.
3) Not true. There was also evidence provided for grease, and chorizo.
4) They left out grease, chorizo, and, for that matter, any other offal that might have been in the burrito, as originally claimed by Team Houlihan.
5) Without a burrito (or supplement) sample that tested positive, much of the argument from Houlihan's experts was about the validiity of the AAF, as Houlihan's results, both the concentration, and the CIR, are consistent with intact boar offal consumption, as she invoked, and the WADA Lab would need more data to exclude intact boar offal, before concluding an AAF. If the AAF is invalid, Houihan wouldn't need to determine the source, something the CAS told us is a difficult, if not impossible, burden for the athlete.
6) Team Houlihan was consistent in saying "meat and offal". Even Prof. Jahren, who you quoted as saying "pork meat-meal", actually said "a pork-meat meal, be it standardly derived from muscle tissue or non-standardly derived from offal ...". Excluding important details like that is one of your tricks. It was Team WA/AIU, through their experts, who limited their rebuttals to pork meat and stomach, despite the broader claim.
7) These CAS opinions are based on incomplete, and sometimes wrong, information. They are also incomplete. Regardless of the low contributions from boar meat and stomach, the higher levels would have come from other offal in a burrito containing pork offal.
Do you not yet see that I'm unpersuaded as there are too many unanswered questions about how to interpret Houlihan's ambiguous test results?
The word ingredient. Oxford definition for "ingredient":
"any of the foods or substances that are combined to make a particular dish."
Looks like I need to dumb it down for you, and explain it without using the technical term "ingredient":
1) Houlihan claimed the nandrolone may have come from offal.
2) Houlihan provided only evidence for butt (meat) and stomach (outer stomach muscle aka meat) as pieces of pig used by the food truck - for offal and chorizo alike.
3) There was no evidence for any other pieces of pork used by the food truck.
4) Therefore only stomach/meat was considered as potential sources for the nandrolone during the whole CAS proceeding.
5) Therefore no one from Houlihan's team, not even her $ lawyer, and no expert ever consulted on this, argued that other pieces of pig should have been considered as a source for her nandrolone.
6) Therefore there was no bait and switch from the Claimant, who, like the Defendant and her so-called "experts", called it meat and or stomach.
7) Therefore the CAS panel came to the correct conclusions with two 3 : 0 votes that:
and
8) Therefore (and for several other reasons!) Tygart was correct in stating "The CAS decision I think in the Houlihan case does a really good job of analyzing the facts and the data and the evidence".
9) Therefore (and for several other reasons!) Tucker was correct in stating "With confidence, I’d say “not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion."."
10) Therefore (and for several other reasons!) you have no case.
Is that still too complicated?
You did make the arguments dumber.
So we can say "chorizo (pork sausage)" is a pork ingredient in one of the pork stomach burritos served that night.
2) Not quite true. Not sure that pork meat evidence and stomach evidence was meant to cover chorizo, or exclude other offal.
3) Not true. There was also evidence provided for grease, and chorizo.
4) They left out grease, chorizo, and, for that matter, any other offal that might have been in the burrito, as originally claimed by Team Houlihan.
5) Without a burrito (or supplement) sample that tested positive, much of the argument from Houlihan's experts was about the validiity of the AAF, as Houlihan's results, both the concentration, and the CIR, are consistent with intact boar offal consumption, as she invoked, and the WADA Lab would need more data to exclude intact boar offal, before concluding an AAF. If the AAF is invalid, Houihan wouldn't need to determine the source, something the CAS told us is a difficult, if not impossible, burden for the athlete.
6) Team Houlihan was consistent in saying "meat and offal". Even Prof. Jahren, who you quoted as saying "pork meat-meal", actually said "a pork-meat meal, be it standardly derived from muscle tissue or non-standardly derived from offal ...". Excluding important details like that is one of your tricks. It was Team WA/AIU, through their experts, who limited their rebuttals to pork meat and stomach, despite the broader claim.
7) These CAS opinions are based on incomplete, and sometimes wrong, information. They are also incomplete. Regardless of the low contributions from boar meat and stomach, the higher levels would have come from other offal in a burrito containing pork offal.
Do you not yet see that I'm unpersuaded as there are too many unanswered questions about how to interpret Houlihan's ambiguous test results?
Who says "pork ingredient" must be "a piece of pig", and not pork sausage? It is your question that is wrong.
The word ingredient. Oxford definition for "ingredient":
"any of the foods or substances that are combined to make a particular dish."
Looks like I need to dumb it down for you, and explain it without using the technical term "ingredient":
1) Houlihan claimed the nandrolone may have come from offal.
2) Houlihan provided only evidence for butt (meat) and stomach (outer stomach muscle aka meat) as pieces of pig used by the food truck - for offal and chorizo alike.
3) There was no evidence for any other pieces of pork used by the food truck.
4) Therefore only stomach/meat was considered as potential sources for the nandrolone during the whole CAS proceeding.
5) Therefore no one from Houlihan's team, not even her $$ lawyer, and no expert ever consulted on this, argued that other pieces of pig should have been considered as a source for her nandrolone.
6) Therefore there was no bait and switch from the Claimant, who, like the Defendant and her so-called "experts", called it meat and or stomach.
7) Therefore the CAS panel came to the correct conclusions with two 3 : 0 votes that:
Thus, based on the above, the Panel finds it possible but highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels. The Panel – on a balance of probabilities – is not ready to accept this.
and
The Panel finds it possible but improbable that the ingestion of boar meat (cryptorchid) would have resulted in the urinary concentration found in the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples.
8) Therefore (and for several other reasons!) Tygart was correct in stating "The CAS decision I think in the Houlihan case does a really good job of analyzing the facts and the data and the evidence".
9) Therefore (and for several other reasons!) Tucker was correct in stating "With confidence, I’d say “not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion."."
10) Therefore (and for several other reasons!) you have no case.
Is that still too complicated?
It isn't too complicated but he is determined to promote his falsehoods.
You keep rephrasing and spinning. And ignoring that Houlihan herself admitted to JG that is was stomach. And ignoring what the experts said. And discarding all the CAS decisions purely based on your illusions.
Houlihan provided only evidence for butt (meat) and stomach (outer stomach muscle aka meat) as pieces of pig *acquired* by the food truck - for offal and chorizo alike. There is nothing you can say that changes that.
However they prepared offal and chorizo from butt and stomach, and whether or not those turned out to be greasy, cannot magically increase the nandrolone content.
All your semantic games do nothing to change that.
It isn't too complicated but he is determined to promote his falsehoods.
Looks like dumbing it down works for you.
Unfortunately I remain unpersuaded, as it leaves out some relevant details, and introduces some novel ones, and muddies it with irrelevant ones.
Still persisting with your falsehoods. Nothing you say is an accurate let alone true analysis of Houlihan's case. Nothing is gained by following you down your rabbit-hole of deliberate deceptions.
You keep rephrasing and spinning. And ignoring that Houlihan herself admitted to JG that is was stomach. And ignoring what the experts said. And discarding all the CAS decisions purely based on your illusions.
Houlihan provided only evidence for butt (meat) and stomach (outer stomach muscle aka meat) as pieces of pig *acquired* by the food truck - for offal and chorizo alike. There is nothing you can say that changes that.
However they prepared offal and chorizo from butt and stomach, and whether or not those turned out to be greasy, cannot magically increase the nandrolone content.
All your semantic games do nothing to change that.
I thought you said "Houlihan herself called it "meat" as well in the LR interview". Now you say she "admitted to JG that is was stomach"? Oh what a tangled web you weave.
You also said Prof. Jahren called it "meat", leaving out that she said "pork meat-meal" could be meat or offal. This is one of your many tricks.
It turns out that you often rephrase and spin what others said.
Do I ignore what experts said? It's true I generally disregard baseless conclusions regardless of their expertise.
But I did listen when Prof. McGlone conceded the increased soy in diets. And I listened to Prof. Ayotte's research finding values exceeding by far (by about a factor of 25x) Houlihan's levels, with a comparable CIR, from small sample sizes, from local Canadian boar, when evaluating her own testimony before the CAS. And I listened when WADA said that Houlihan's values were usual and in the endogenous range.
I listened when Houlihan's experts consistently said "meat and offal", without any exclusions, contrasting that with the WA's experts framing of Houlihan's claim, like "the pork product that the Athlete allegedly ate is pork stomach", without any obvious basis, or evaluating "a burrito containing offal" with the literature on meat ingestion. The CAS gave no explanation for the two different intepretations of what the claim was before them.
No expert said "they prepared offal and chorizo from butt and stomach", and there is no basis for that.
I'm still wondering, when will they consider and rebut and rule on the rest of Houlihan's claim "burrito containing offal"?
Unfortunately I remain unpersuaded, as it leaves out some relevant details, and introduces some novel ones, and muddies it with irrelevant ones.
Still persisting with your falsehoods. Nothing you say is an accurate let alone true analysis of Houlihan's case. Nothing is gained by following you down your rabbit-hole of deliberate deceptions.
How would you even know, if you don't understand the rulings, or the standards applied?
I thought you said "Houlihan herself called it "meat" as well in the LR interview". Now you say she "admitted to JG that is was stomach"? Oh what a tangled web you weave.
I listened when Houlihan's experts consistently said "meat and offal", without any exclusions
No expert said "they prepared offal and chorizo from butt and stomach", and there is no basis for that.
1) Both is true! It was a long interview. Check it out. And you never responded to JG, contrary to your claim that you rebutted it. Oh what a tangled web you weave.
2) Good for you. I also realized that Houlihan provided only evidence for butt (meat) and stomach (outer stomach muscle aka meat) as pieces of pig *acquired* by the food truck - for offal and chorizo alike. Therefore only meat and stomach were discussed as sources for the nandrolone - no matter how which burrito was prepared. Your cute little game of redefining chorizo as piece of pork instead a dish or meal (like stew, omelet, ... right?) is irrelevant, no matter whether you will keep repeating it for five more years.
Also - I thought Jahren said “a pork-meat meal, be it standardly derived from muscle tissue or non-standardly derived from offal", not "meat and offal"? Oh what a tangled web you weave.
That's been my point all along: it doesn't matter how the meal was "derived" or called - it matters what was bought to be used to prepare it.
3) No basis, LOL. You wish. Again, the basis for that is that Houlihan provided only evidence for butt (meat) and stomach (outer stomach muscle aka meat) as pieces of pig *acquired* by the food truck - for offal and chorizo alike. Oh what a tangled web you weave.
Stop ignoring the evidence.
Did you ever wonder why no one ever argued in the CAS proceeding that the nandrolone may have come from any other source, aside from meat (stomach muscle) in the burrito?
And why all independent experts agreed that it wasn't in the burrito, for several reasons?
Still persisting with your falsehoods. Nothing you say is an accurate let alone true analysis of Houlihan's case. Nothing is gained by following you down your rabbit-hole of deliberate deceptions.
How would you even know, if you don't understand the rulings, or the standards applied?
You should certainly ask yourself that question. You are the only one here who doesn't know.