Do you all think Ross feels a bit annoyed and snakebitten by BroJos?
He is commissioned to write an article, and then when the article disagrees with their narrative, they come in the message boards, and still go with their theory that nothing is proven...i.e. "nobody knows if she's guilty or not?". He laid it out, and they choose to keep their head in the sand.
I know the check clears either way, so Ross gets his cash, but he must feel annoyed by their handling right?
Mate, you are clearly unacquainted with academic writing conventions. "Her own studies" will be referring to the many lab tests that she has conducted on behalf of the AIU - you also failed to highlight the part where it says she relied on the previous literature as well (I presume because that's inconvenient for your argument). When the decision highlights Professor Ayotte's experience, it's not just her opinion, it is informed by results she has observed and her knowledge of the literature. This is the very definition of expertise in any field. You make it sound like Prof. Ayotte was just someone who has opinions on the case when, in reality, she is a renowned scientist in the field. Her experience is knowledge, her studies are research.
What's your knowledge and experience? Anything to do with biology, chemistry, pharmacology, or sports science?
[Yo, webmaster, I've tried to respond three times to High Hopes here, but every time I click Post Reply it just hangs. I will try it without hyperlinks on the research papers to see if it goes through.]
I searched for every published study on δ13C values in American pork, and the titles below were pretty much all I could find. I don't recall seeing a study by Ayotte that surveyed pork δ13C values (and I tried to check most of her work), but I'm happy to be corrected.
Application of Stable Isotope Ratio Analysis for Origin Authentication of Pork Limitation: This study looked at pork that had been imported into S. Korea, which is very likely to be from mainstream sources and not pasture-raised.
Isotopic carbon turnover in pig hoof and rib Limitation: This study only looked at how δ13C values change in pork as their diet is altered. It did not attempt to survey pork generally.
Carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes in fast food: Signatures of corn and confinement Limitation: Did not look at pork. But the beef numbers and visuals are fantastic. Low δ13C values are rare, but they do occur. Must also keep in mind fast-food beef is the most homogenous mainstream beef available and does not represent a broad sample.
Excretion of 19-norandrosterone after consumption of boar meat Limitation: It only studied wild boars in Germany.
FWIW, I am a generalist. Pretty good knowledge of the history of the FDA and regulatory capture. Worked in a research library for several years. Degree in Behavioral Sciences. Studied biology with Lorna Straus and Jerre Levy at UChicago, among others. Boring. I notice all of you jackals are anonymous.
As a research scientist, her own studies would also include lab results that she hasn't written up. Keep in mind that her primary job is to run tests on samples, publishing will come on top of that. She will have access to a database of tests that she has conducted that, I assume, she has made available to the AIU to corroborate her claims.
As a "generalist", I'm not saying you should stay in your lane, but I am saying that I give a lot more credence to the claims of people who have spent their careers researching and writing about these subjects. A few weeks of internet sleuthing doesn't give you the foundational knowledge or comprehension of complex issues that comes from decades of dedication.
And if the AIUs array of experts and Ross Tucker have somehow misinterpreted something, how has this also been missed by Houlihan's experts and lawyer, who was experienced in defending doping athletes? It goes back to that old meme, honey, you haven't found something on the internet that the whole world has overlooked.
How would you know what the merits are? The strength of an opinion comes from knowledge and expertise. It's very easy to spout convincing BS to non-experts because by flattering them into think that they understand. The entire wellness industry is built on this premise and it's worth billions. Whatever you may believe, expertise and credentials matter. The convincing-sounding argument from the random internet guy essentially plays on ignorance, it's a con trick
Just because you can't tell the difference, doesn't mean everyone else cannot.
Experts can spout convincing BS too, particularly if they are talking about domains outside their area of expertise. And posters like you would find it convincing. This is the fallacy of argumentation by authority.
To determine if something has merit requires basic intelligence and ability to comprehend what you read. Generally someone says something, and to give it weight and strength, supports it with real world observations, sometimes carefully measured in controlled environments, or relies on the strength of a report or paper or some other authoritative source, where someone else has done the same thing. This is basic Scientific Method 101. If it is BS, it should be easy to find a counter-example.
Of course, I would listen to Ross on topics of exercise physiology and heat dissipation -- topics I know he has some expertise and credentials. Even then, I'm sure he would be inclined to point me to papers to back up certain points.
But it doesn't take much expertise to read 44 pages of a CAS Report and a handful of documents at WADA's website, to know what they found, and what they didn't find, and what the findings mean.
You're a study in motivated reasoning. I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories
Do you all think Ross feels a bit annoyed and snakebitten by BroJos?
He is commissioned to write an article, and then when the article disagrees with their narrative, they come in the message boards, and still go with their theory that nothing is proven...i.e. "nobody knows if she's guilty or not?". He laid it out, and they choose to keep their head in the sand.
I know the check clears either way, so Ross gets his cash, but he must feel annoyed by their handling right?
Tucker raises the question about contamination of the food and how he was surprised that the food chain evidence was unchallenged.
I can’t think for one second that a very low rent food outlet would have automatically not have access to cheap end food with excessive steroid enhancers.
In the UK we refuse USA meat/ pork.
The Veterinary Residues Committee regularly reports Nandolone positives.
Do you all think Ross feels a bit annoyed and snakebitten by BroJos?
He is commissioned to write an article, and then when the article disagrees with their narrative, they come in the message boards, and still go with their theory that nothing is proven...i.e. "nobody knows if she's guilty or not?". He laid it out, and they choose to keep their head in the sand.
I know the check clears either way, so Ross gets his cash, but he must feel annoyed by their handling right?
Tucker raises the question about contamination of the food and how he was surprised that the food chain evidence was unchallenged.
I can’t think for one second that a very low rent food outlet would have automatically not have access to cheap end food with excessive steroid enhancers.
In the UK we refuse USA meat/ pork.
The Veterinary Residues Committee regularly reports Nandolone positives.
If this were a real problem there would be loads of US athletes testing positive.
[Yo, webmaster, I've tried to respond three times to High Hopes here, but every time I click Post Reply it just hangs. I will try it without hyperlinks on the research papers to see if it goes through.]
I searched for every published study on δ13C values in American pork, and the titles below were pretty much all I could find. I don't recall seeing a study by Ayotte that surveyed pork δ13C values (and I tried to check most of her work), but I'm happy to be corrected.
Application of Stable Isotope Ratio Analysis for Origin Authentication of Pork Limitation: This study looked at pork that had been imported into S. Korea, which is very likely to be from mainstream sources and not pasture-raised.
Isotopic carbon turnover in pig hoof and rib Limitation: This study only looked at how δ13C values change in pork as their diet is altered. It did not attempt to survey pork generally.
Carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes in fast food: Signatures of corn and confinement Limitation: Did not look at pork. But the beef numbers and visuals are fantastic. Low δ13C values are rare, but they do occur. Must also keep in mind fast-food beef is the most homogenous mainstream beef available and does not represent a broad sample.
Excretion of 19-norandrosterone after consumption of boar meat Limitation: It only studied wild boars in Germany.
FWIW, I am a generalist. Pretty good knowledge of the history of the FDA and regulatory capture. Worked in a research library for several years. Degree in Behavioral Sciences. Studied biology with Lorna Straus and Jerre Levy at UChicago, among others. Boring. I notice all of you jackals are anonymous.
As a research scientist, her own studies would also include lab results that she hasn't written up. Keep in mind that her primary job is to run tests on samples, publishing will come on top of that. She will have access to a database of tests that she has conducted that, I assume, she has made available to the AIU to corroborate her claims.
As a "generalist", I'm not saying you should stay in your lane, but I am saying that I give a lot more credence to the claims of people who have spent their careers researching and writing about these subjects. A few weeks of internet sleuthing doesn't give you the foundational knowledge or comprehension of complex issues that comes from decades of dedication.
And if the AIUs array of experts and Ross Tucker have somehow misinterpreted something, how has this also been missed by Houlihan's experts and lawyer, who was experienced in defending doping athletes? It goes back to that old meme, honey, you haven't found something on the internet that the whole world has overlooked.
Are not expert witnesses to be independent from witness to facts?
Tucker raises the question about contamination of the food and how he was surprised that the food chain evidence was unchallenged.
I can’t think for one second that a very low rent food outlet would have automatically not have access to cheap end food with excessive steroid enhancers.
In the UK we refuse USA meat/ pork.
The Veterinary Residues Committee regularly reports Nandolone positives.
If this were a real problem there would be loads of US athletes testing positive.
Actually, I didn't miss that. If you read my first lengthy post, I addressed the point of pork stomach, suggesting that as something that Houlihan's team might have gotten wrong.
Recall I was not a party to the proceedings and I am not bound to what was brought up or not brought up before the CAS. In order to form my opinions, I can draw on facts and data not presented to the CAS, and I can point out the doubts that arise from the experts testimonies that Houlihan's team did not. A stomach burrito has many ingredients, and the nandrolone could come from multiple ingredients: stomach mixed with meat mixed with other organs.
so, you're stating you are better the SH's team, and you think you're brilliant analysis is better than what they could come up with?
I'm sure Shelby regrets that she didn't retain the services of Moultonk, Twoggle, & Rekrunner, google researchers extraordinaire. What a bunch of posers and clowns.
Credentials give legitimacy and they communicate whether there is bias or not.
We can judge Ross's expertise and his likelihood of bias on the topic because we've got decades of his work to understand where he comes from, who he is affiliated with, and what his history tells us about his accuracy.
With Twoggle, we have none of that. Sure, we have data and citations, but we don't know twoggles record, bias, his conflicts of interest, or anything. Lots of people rightfully question professor Ayotte after the Lawson case. We have no such opportunity to know if Twoggle is paid by Houlihan, Nike, or has a history of scientific fraud.
Even if the analysis seems appropriate, it deserves to be dismissed because we don't have any of that information.
Another way to look at it is, Ross's analysis could be published in a peer reviewed outlet. Twoggle could not. There's a reason we don't anonymize authors in serious work.
I'm curious then -- what is your judgement of Ross's expertise, and bias?
And how well are you able to assess Ross's expertise and bias, if you cannot judge his words on their merits?
With an anonymous "twoggle" it's much better, because you can approach everything he says with a high degree of scepticism, and attempt to understand the topic for yourself, in order to judge what you can keep, and what you can ignore. It wouldn't matter who pays "twoggle" because the things of the most value come from authorities like WADA.
If you rely on a person's title and your perception of his expertise on topics outside his realm of PhD study and post-study experience, you risk letting your guard down, and leave yourself susceptible to deception.
Actually, I didn't miss that. If you read my first lengthy post, I addressed the point of pork stomach, suggesting that as something that Houlihan's team might have gotten wrong.
Recall I was not a party to the proceedings and I am not bound to what was brought up or not brought up before the CAS. In order to form my opinions, I can draw on facts and data not presented to the CAS, and I can point out the doubts that arise from the experts testimonies that Houlihan's team did not. A stomach burrito has many ingredients, and the nandrolone could come from multiple ingredients: stomach mixed with meat mixed with other organs.
so, you're stating you are better the SH's team, and you think you're brilliant analysis is better than what they could come up with?
Better at what?
"THOUGHTSLEADER" seems to think I should be constrained to argue only that which Houlihan's team argued, and not oppose/rebut what they failed to oppose/rebut.
In their defense, SH's team had a very limited time to do prepare and give their defense.
And I can't take all the credit. I have the benefit of starting with the CAS report, including what worked and what didn't, and the crowd-sourced work of several others, and 20-20 hindsight.
so, you're stating you are better the SH's team, and you think you're brilliant analysis is better than what they could come up with?
I'm sure Shelby regrets that she didn't retain the services of Moultonk, Twoggle, & Rekrunner, google researchers extraordinaire. What a bunch of posers and clowns.
Knowing what I know now, I would recommend she accept the sanction "nolo contendere", and push for the 1-year reduction for not fighting it. Then she can give the same press-release, saying "we don't know, but we think it is the burrito but there is no way to prove it".
In my opinion, the WADA Code is broken, placing an often impossible burden on the athlete, and railroads innocent athletes into 4-year bans and treats them like dopers.
Without a sample of the burrito to test, there is simply no way to meet the balance of probability threshold required.
Do you all think Ross feels a bit annoyed and snakebitten by BroJos?
He is commissioned to write an article, and then when the article disagrees with their narrative, they come in the message boards, and still go with their theory that nothing is proven...i.e. "nobody knows if she's guilty or not?". He laid it out, and they choose to keep their head in the sand.
I know the check clears either way, so Ross gets his cash, but he must feel annoyed by their handling right?
Yes indeed. Foam rollah nailed it with his "summary" earlier here in this thread (upvoted by 108 : 1):
We reached out to Ross, who is one of the best at conveying information on endurance sports science, a few months ago and asked him to look at the Shelby case for us.He's got two pieces for us.If you've only got time to read...
Do you all think Ross feels a bit annoyed and snakebitten by BroJos?
He is commissioned to write an article, and then when the article disagrees with their narrative, they come in the message boards, and still go with their theory that nothing is proven...i.e. "nobody knows if she's guilty or not?". He laid it out, and they choose to keep their head in the sand.
I know the check clears either way, so Ross gets his cash, but he must feel annoyed by their handling right?
He knew who he was writing it for when he accepted the asignment.
I'm sure Shelby regrets that she didn't retain the services of Moultonk, Twoggle, & Rekrunner, google researchers extraordinaire. What a bunch of posers and clowns.
Knowing what I know now, I would recommend she accept the sanction "nolo contendere", and push for the 1-year reduction for not fighting it. Then she can give the same press-release, saying "we don't know, but we think it is the burrito but there is no way to prove it".
In my opinion, the WADA Code is broken, placing an often impossible burden on the athlete, and railroads innocent athletes into 4-year bans and treats them like dopers.
Without a sample of the burrito to test, there is simply no way to meet the balance of probability threshold required.
There is no 'balance of probability threshold."
if you fail a roadside breath test, the onus falls on you to show that the test was erroneous. There's no balance test where the police have to prove you were actually drinking. When you fail a drug test, it's your responsibility to prove you didn't dope. There's no balance of probability determination that decides if the test was valid; your defense has to be extraordinary to overcome the fact of the failed test.
Knowing what I know now, I would recommend she accept the sanction "nolo contendere", and push for the 1-year reduction for not fighting it. Then she can give the same press-release, saying "we don't know, but we think it is the burrito but there is no way to prove it".
In my opinion, the WADA Code is broken, placing an often impossible burden on the athlete, and railroads innocent athletes into 4-year bans and treats them like dopers.
Without a sample of the burrito to test, there is simply no way to meet the balance of probability threshold required.
There is no 'balance of probability threshold."
if you fail a roadside breath test, the onus falls on you to show that the test was erroneous. There's no balance test where the police have to prove you were actually drinking. When you fail a drug test, it's your responsibility to prove you didn't dope. There's no balance of probability determination that decides if the test was valid; your defense has to be extraordinary to overcome the fact of the failed test.
The threshold is a multiplicity of order higher than the minute levels in such as this Nandolone case. There is no assumption that the test was carried out correctly the police have to prove it.
There are a whole range of defences available which are within the bounds of being proved.
