I sometimes wish you had been my father. You would have bought any excuse I made, hook, line and sinker. You surely would have believed that the dog ate my homework, even if it were on a computer. Carry on!
I sometimes wish you had been my father. You would have bought any excuse I made, hook, line and sinker. You surely would have believed that the dog ate my homework, even if it were on a computer. Carry on!
On the contrary, I would skeptically ask you for supporting facts and evidence, rather than blindly accepting what I was told.
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?
1) What did JG claim, that I said I rebutted? I'm sure Houlihan said "meat" and "stomach" as well as "offal", over the years. The question is whether anything she said excluded anything she said before, and whether that exclusion occurred before the CAS decision.
2) You originally said "she only provided evidence for butt and stomach as pork ingredients". This is clearly not true, as she provided other evidence. You said nothing about "pieces of pig *acquired* by the food truck". You provided all of us a dictionary definition of ingredient -- effectively showing us that "chorizo (pork sausage)" can rightly be considered a "pork ingredient" in a pork stomach burrito. But even then, we should also consider grease, in light of Prof. McGlone's testimony, whether it qualifies as a "pork ingredient".
Which "independent expert" told us chorizo is pig butt and stomach? This seems like your own novel explanation.
My point all along is that Houlihan's maintained claim to the AIU of "a burrito ... containing pork offal" has only been partially rebutted. For that matter, it has only been partially ruled on by the CAS. You seem to want to blame Houlihan for the incompleteness, as if blaming Houlihan somehow proves that the rebuttals were complete, or exonerates the incomplete rebuttals from the pork offal experts. This is immaterial to the question of incompleteness.
3) I'm not ignoring any evidence but considering all of it -- including the evidence you avoid. I'm also considering where there is a lack of evidence.
I am ignoring opinions of outside "independent experts", who cannot know what was in the burrito without testing the burrito itself. If they provide a basis for their opinions, I will consider the basis, and only consider their opinion to the extent their is a basis for it. I have given many reasons to doubt the many assumptions of the "dependent experts", as well as the completeness, if not the correctness.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
I sometimes wish you had been my father. You would have bought any excuse I made, hook, line and sinker. You surely would have believed that the dog ate my homework, even if it were on a computer. Carry on!
On the contrary, I would skeptically ask you for supporting facts and evidence, rather than blindly accepting what I was told.
But would you ever ask Shelby for “supporting facts and evidence,” as opposed to blindly accepting what she says, or at least bending over backwards to make it seem plausible?
On the contrary, I would skeptically ask you for supporting facts and evidence, rather than blindly accepting what I was told.
But would you ever ask Shelby for “supporting facts and evidence,” as opposed to blindly accepting what she says, or at least bending over backwards to make it seem plausible?
Of course I would, in due time. But I don't blindly accepted what Shelby says. Why would you say that? As for making it seem plausible, it is the WADA TD and its related research, the research of Prof. Ayotte, and the concession of Prof. McGlone of increased soy in the diets, that make ingestion by pork plausible.
My whole point is that the WADA process does not give the CAS enough facts and evidence to make evidence backed findings. Both WADA and the CAS make it clear that presumptions play a necessary role in supporting the CAS findings. I question the validity of these presumptions.
I generally consider athletes are innocent until proven guilty. This puts me at odds with the WADA Code, which permits anti-doping organizations many favorable presumptions rather than requiring such proof. According to the WADA TD, the evidence of the test results are ambiguous and inconclusive, so I would ask WA/AIU to collect more facts and evidence before even charging Houlihan.
I would follow the same sequence as WADA, but actually require the WADA Lab to meet its standard of proof, then require World Athletics to meet its standard of proof, before putting any burden on Houlihan to provide a rebuttal. Even then, I would consider what Judge Jean-Paul Costa told WADA about the difficulty/impossibility of proving how the substance entered the body, and not penalize the athlete for the failure to do something considered difficult or impossible:
"Such proof [how the substance entered the body] is difficult to provide. Is such aggravation excessive? One could have doubts in this respect, because an impossible proof either leads to a reversal of the burden of proof or to the irrefutable assumption of an anti-doping rule violation ..."
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
But would you ever ask Shelby for “supporting facts and evidence,” as opposed to blindly accepting what she says, or at least bending over backwards to make it seem plausible?
Of course I would, in due time. But I don't blindly accepted what Shelby says. Why would you say that? As for making it seem plausible, it is the WADA TD and its related research, the research of Prof. Ayotte, and the concession of Prof. McGlone of increased soy in the diets, that make ingestion by pork plausible.
My whole point is that the WADA process does not give the CAS enough facts and evidence to make evidence backed findings. Both WADA and the CAS make it clear that presumptions play a necessary role in supporting the CAS findings. I question the validity of these presumptions.
I generally consider athletes are innocent until proven guilty. This puts me at odds with the WADA Code, which permits anti-doping organizations many favorable presumptions rather than requiring such proof. According to the WADA TD, the evidence of the test results are ambiguous and inconclusive, so I would ask WA/AIU to collect more facts and evidence before even charging Houlihan.
I would follow the same sequence as WADA, but actually require the WADA Lab to meet its standard of proof, then require World Athletics to meet its standard of proof, before putting any burden on Houlihan to provide a rebuttal. Even then, I would consider what Judge Jean-Paul Costa told WADA about the difficulty/impossibility of proving how the substance entered the body, and not penalize the athlete for the failure to do something considered difficult or impossible:
"Such proof [how the substance entered the body] is difficult to provide. Is such aggravation excessive? One could have doubts in this respect, because an impossible proof either leads to a reversal of the burden of proof or to the irrefutable assumption of an anti-doping rule violation ..."
It has often appeared to me, and correct me if I am wrong, although almost by definition perhaps you cannot, that you may subconsciously cut slack to apparent dopers because you have doubts about the advantage it confers upon them in most cases.
It has often appeared to me, and correct me if I am wrong, although almost by definition perhaps you cannot, that you may subconsciously cut slack to apparent dopers because you have doubts about the advantage it confers upon them in most cases.
Unless someone has shown the causal link between doping and advantages, I consider these to be two independent discussions, one having nothing to do with the other.
I don't know what "apparent doper" means, and we may disagree about what makes a doper "apparent", but I do not adapt my opinions about dopers based on my independent opinions, or skepticism, about whether that doping conferred any advantage, or could possibly confer an advantage, for that doper. I never "cut slack" to proven intentional dopers, regardless of whether doping made them faster or slower or had no effect.
In both of these cases, my position still boils down to "facts and evidence", as opposed to accepting what others say they found, "hook, line, and sinker".
But Rekster the issue I have with you is that although you portray yourself as being reasonable and objective, and only interested in the truth, if you were a paid advocate for Shelby, would your commentary be much different? It seems that your interest is not as much in the truth as in finding any possible doubt about the mens rea of the alleged doper, and this agenda clouds your vision and diminishes your claims to objectivity, although I would grant you there is a mob mentality which is not objective in assuming intentional doping on the other side of this. But you seem to take offense at their lack of objectivity and then boomerang to the other side while sacrificing some objectivity.
But Rekster the issue I have with you is that although you portray yourself as being reasonable and objective, and only interested in the truth, if you were a paid advocate for Shelby, would your commentary be much different? It seems that your interest is not as much in the truth as in finding any possible doubt about the mens rea of the alleged doper, and this agenda clouds your vision and diminishes your claims to objectivity, although I would grant you there is a mob mentality which is not objective in assuming intentional doping on the other side of this. But you seem to take offense at their lack of objectivity and then boomerang to the other side while sacrificing some objectivity.
If that is the reason for your issue, then your issue is not with me.
I wish I were paid but my on-going search for knowledge is voluntary and something I do for free. As my commentary is based on my available knowledge, as I have well documented throughout many threads, it would be the same regardless of who paid me, or doesn't pay me. What can change my commentary is new knowledge.
Perhaps to put it in the best perspective, what sets me apart from the WADA Code is that I tend to give athletes the benefit of the doubt, and presume they are innocent until proven guilty. Anything that is not proved is subject to my skepticism, even if, and especially if, it comes from experts, who know that is how the game is played.
I'm surprised to hear that it seems to you that I have an agenda of finding doubt about the "mens rea" of the alleged doper, and that this clouds my vision and diminishes my claims to objectivity. I'm not sure how to interpret that, or what I have done and said that left you that impression.
With respect to intent, WADA and WA and the CAS make it clear that intent is presumed and not proved. The possible doubt about "mens rea" is not something I need to find, but inherent to the process, and as intent was not proved, but rather presumed, any such finding is subject to my skepticism.
But this is a minor secondary point. The question of intent only arises if there is a valid ADRV, and a valid AAF. This is where I have expressed many doubts. We don't need to look for possible doubts in her "mens rea" until after it was "proved" that there was a "crime".
I think too much focus is on what Houlihan argued, either successfully or not. In doping cases, both innocent athletes and guilty ones will argue their innocence, making it difficult to conclude their guilt or innocence. Furthermore, since it is well known that establishing the source of a banned substance, when the athlete does not know it, is difficult, if not impossible, the failure to establish the source makes it difficult to conclude their guilt or innocence.
For these reasons, I don't put much weight on what Houlihan argued, or failed to argue, and look outside for other evidence, either corroborating, or contradicting what was claimed, in my exercising of assessing the strength of the case that was built against her.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
It seems that your interest is not as much in the truth as in finding any possible doubt about the mens rea of the alleged doper, and this agenda clouds your vision and diminishes your claims to objectivity, ... But you seem to ... boomerang to the other side while sacrificing some objectivity.
I'm also puzzled by this seeming impression of diminished or sacrificed objectivity (for reminding everyone that intent was presumed, then deemed?) As I think there are too few facts to express unambiguous objective conclusions, I try to avoid drawing any final conclusions about whether Shelby is truly innocent or guilty (merely adopting a presumption of innocence until proven guilty), but instead look at the process applied to see how well it can distinguish the intentional doper from the innocent athlete unable to prove the unknowing, no fault, non-negligent, unintentional presence of a banned substance.
Focusing on the case that was built against her, in order to assess its robustness, I am left with many uncomfortable questions which essentially probe the extent of what was proved:
Are the WADA TD2019NA and TD2021NA criteria scientifically valid?
Did the WADA Lab correctly report an AAF according to the applicable WADA TDs? Did they meet their burdens to the higher standard the WADA Code says they should? The CAS didn't rule on that, and there is some language in the TD that the CAS failed to address.
Consequently, did, or could, the WA/AIU correctly determine an ADRV occurred, to the higher standard required in the WADA Code? The CAS didn't rule on that either.
DId WA/AIU establish intent? The CAS said it must be deemed based on the language of the Code, rather than established facts.
Much of the discussion was about how rare it would be for intact boar offal to be in an American burrito. This seems to me like an irrelevant question. Characterizing what happens generally cannot be used to conclude, or prove, what happened individually, to the athlete who tested positive for the presence of nandrolone, even when masqueraded as general likelihoods.
But supposing it could, the seven point cascade of factors argument still seems to rely on many unproven assumptions leading me to many more questions:
Must the intact boar be cryptorchid? What about immunocastrated or chemically castrated boars? They said "uncastrated boar enters the food chain through completely different channels than pork". Why does it matter what the channel is if it still enters the food chain? Could the uncastrated boar offal have come from a boar that entered the food chain through a different channel?
Must the boar be 6 months old or less? During the pandemic there was a 2-3 month delay in the slaughter of pigs. This is also time for chemical and immunocastration to wear off and androgen levels to rise to normal levels for an intact boar.
Is it true "the pork product that the Athlete allegedly ate is pork stomach"? The claim to the AIU was "pig offal".
What is the relevance of "meat literature" when the claim was "pig offal"? What does the "pig offal literature" say?
Is it true that all pigs in the USA predominantly eat corn? What is the percentage of exceptions, or what does the national distribution curve look like? Prof. McGlone testified that this wasn't true during a relevant period during the pandemic, where increased soy was added to the diets.
I cannot be persuaded by amateur attempts to provide the answers to these questions, unless they are accompanied with relevant and detailed objective facts and evidence to give them weight and add certainty, or eliminate uncertainties.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
"Unless someone has shown the causal link between doping and advantages, I consider these to be two independent discussions, one having nothing to do with the other."
So you see no "causal link" between "doping and advantages" despite decades of doping in all sports in all countries at professional levels (and schools and seniors) to the extent of over a billion dollars annually and the fact that dopers today are "getting away with it"(Howman). You succumb to the fallacy if you can't measure advantage to any level of exactitude it doesn't exist.
So many people consumed with doing something that jeopardizes their careers for no advantage, and so many experts and sports governance officials concerned to stop athletes doing something that gives them no benefit. Why has no one come to you for your expert advice so they don't waste their time and effort on these things?
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
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 bought by the food truck - for offal and chorizo alike. 3) There was no evidence for any other pieces of pork bought 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 it was too much androgen and nandrolone to have come from any burrito of that food truck. 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.
You and objective? After all this spinning and deflection of yours? Hahahahaha, now I have heard everything.
I'm also puzzled by this seeming impression of diminished or sacrificed objectivity
Must the boar be 6 months old or less? During the pandemic there was a 2-3 month delay in the slaughter of pigs. This is also time for chemical and immunocastration to wear off and androgen levels to rise to normal levels for an intact boar.
What is the relevance of "meat literature" when the claim was "pig offal"? What does the "pig offal literature" say?
Is it true that all pigs in the USA predominantly eat corn? What is the percentage of exceptions, or what does the national distribution curve look like? Prof. McGlone testified that this wasn't true during a relevant period during the pandemic, where increased soy was added to the diets.
These questions alone demonstrate your complete lack of objectivity. Not mention all your arguing here over five years on behalf of this doper, and your attacks on WA/AIU and the experts, and your emotional outbursts.
1) Where does it say a "2-3 month delay"? Looks like you are making up stuff again. The facts are very different:
1b) Even if the pigs were 8-9 months old, which they weren't, you are still just obfuscating from the fact that the reference pigs were much older, around 36 months old.
2) As you know, Houlihan provided only evidence for butt (meat) and stomach (outer stomach muscle aka meat) as pieces of pig bought by the food truck - for offal and chorizo alike. Therefore "meat literature" is the relevant one.
3) Oh what a tangled web you weave. First of all, McGlone didn't really say that at all in those words, that's your spin. Why not use his words? Why do you spin if you are only interested in facts? Second, what happened to you looking for evidence? Why do you take his statement for granted, and even exaggerate it?
Unlike you, I love looking for evidence: there was an increased availability of corn during the pandemic (ethanol/transportation related), therefore a decreased price, and an increased price for soy. For example, corn was 11% cheaper in September 2020 than in January 2020, while soy was 4.5% more expensive. Easy to find on tradingeconomics.com.
It seems that your interest is not as much in the truth as in finding any possible doubt about the mens rea of the alleged doper, and this agenda clouds your vision and diminishes your claims to objectivity, ... But you seem to ... boomerang to the other side while sacrificing some objectivity.
I'm also puzzled by this seeming impression of diminished or sacrificed objectivity (for reminding everyone that intent was presumed, then deemed?) As I think there are too few facts to express unambiguous objective conclusions, I try to avoid drawing any final conclusions about whether Shelby is truly innocent or guilty (merely adopting a presumption of innocence until proven guilty), but instead look at the process applied to see how well it can distinguish the intentional doper from the innocent athlete unable to prove the unknowing, no fault, non-negligent, unintentional presence of a banned substance.
Focusing on the case that was built against her, in order to assess its robustness, I am left with many uncomfortable questions which essentially probe the extent of what was proved:
Are the WADA TD2019NA and TD2021NA criteria scientifically valid?
Did the WADA Lab correctly report an AAF according to the applicable WADA TDs? Did they meet their burdens to the higher standard the WADA Code says they should? The CAS didn't rule on that, and there is some language in the TD that the CAS failed to address.
Consequently, did, or could, the WA/AIU correctly determine an ADRV occurred, to the higher standard required in the WADA Code? The CAS didn't rule on that either.
DId WA/AIU establish intent? The CAS said it must be deemed based on the language of the Code, rather than established facts.
Much of the discussion was about how rare it would be for intact boar offal to be in an American burrito. This seems to me like an irrelevant question. Characterizing what happens generally cannot be used to conclude, or prove, what happened individually, to the athlete who tested positive for the presence of nandrolone, even when masqueraded as general likelihoods.
But supposing it could, the seven point cascade of factors argument still seems to rely on many unproven assumptions leading me to many more questions:
Must the intact boar be cryptorchid? What about immunocastrated or chemically castrated boars? They said "uncastrated boar enters the food chain through completely different channels than pork". Why does it matter what the channel is if it still enters the food chain? Could the uncastrated boar offal have come from a boar that entered the food chain through a different channel?
Must the boar be 6 months old or less? During the pandemic there was a 2-3 month delay in the slaughter of pigs. This is also time for chemical and immunocastration to wear off and androgen levels to rise to normal levels for an intact boar.
Is it true "the pork product that the Athlete allegedly ate is pork stomach"? The claim to the AIU was "pig offal".
What is the relevance of "meat literature" when the claim was "pig offal"? What does the "pig offal literature" say?
Is it true that all pigs in the USA predominantly eat corn? What is the percentage of exceptions, or what does the national distribution curve look like? Prof. McGlone testified that this wasn't true during a relevant period during the pandemic, where increased soy was added to the diets.
I cannot be persuaded by amateur attempts to provide the answers to these questions, unless they are accompanied with relevant and detailed objective facts and evidence to give them weight and add certainty, or eliminate uncertainties.
Maybe you should also expand your knowledge and watch a documentary on industrial butcher houses so you might understand that this unicorn boar with synthetic nandrolone you speak of would, besides not being a cow, also be mixed in with hundreds of other regular non doping pigs.
"Unless someone has shown the causal link between doping and advantages, I consider these to be two independent discussions, one having nothing to do with the other."
So you see no "causal link" between "doping and advantages" despite decades of doping in all sports in all countries at professional levels (and schools and seniors) to the extent of over a billion dollars annually and the fact that dopers today are "getting away with it"(Howman). You succumb to the fallacy if you can't measure advantage to any level of exactitude it doesn't exist.
So many people consumed with doing something that jeopardizes their careers for no advantage, and so many experts and sports governance officials concerned to stop athletes doing something that gives them no benefit. Why has no one come to you for your expert advice so they don't waste their time and effort on these things?
According to a literature review study by Heuberger, some drugs have been shown to improve strength for elite athletes.
It's not a fallacy to apply the scientific method and assume the null hypothesis.
I provide my advice here, and everyone is free to take it.
These questions alone demonstrate your complete lack of objectivity. Not mention all your arguing here over five years on behalf of this doper, and your attacks on WA/AIU and the experts, and your emotional outbursts.
1) Where does it say a "2-3 month delay"? Looks like you are making up stuff again. The facts are very different:
1b) Even if the pigs were 8-9 months old, which they weren't, you are still just obfuscating from the fact that the reference pigs were much older, around 36 months old.
2) As you know, Houlihan provided only evidence for butt (meat) and stomach (outer stomach muscle aka meat) as pieces of pig bought by the food truck - for offal and chorizo alike. Therefore "meat literature" is the relevant one.
3) Oh what a tangled web you weave. First of all, McGlone didn't really say that at all in those words, that's your spin. Why not use his words? Why do you spin if you are only interested in facts? Second, what happened to you looking for evidence? Why do you take his statement for granted, and even exaggerate it?
Unlike you, I love looking for evidence: there was an increased availability of corn during the pandemic (ethanol/transportation related), therefore a decreased price, and an increased price for soy. For example, corn was 11% cheaper in September 2020 than in January 2020, while soy was 4.5% more expensive. Easy to find on tradingeconomics.com.
These questions show skepticism, rather than a lack of objectivity, and are only made possible by the lack of facts and evidence to support the corresponding assumptions, presumptions, and conclusions.
1) Here's an AI response with sources supporting a 2-3 month delay:
The delays in pig slaughter during the COVID-19 pandemic generally lasted around 2 to 3 months, primarily occurring in the early months of 2020.
- In the U.S., pork processing plants experienced significant slowdowns and temporary closures between March and May 2020, causing a backlog of pigs waiting for slaughter during this period thecounter.org www.ers.usda.gov. - These delays led to a temporary reduction in slaughter volumes, with some plants operating at reduced capacity for about 2-3 months before recovery began www.ers.usda.govwww.frontiersin.org. - After this initial period, many regions saw a gradual easing of delays and a return toward normal slaughter capacity by mid-2020 or early 2021 ap.fftc.org.tw.
So, the most intense slaughter delays lasted roughly two to three months, although the ripple effects on pig growth, farm management, and supply chains extended beyond that timeframe pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.nationalhogfarmer.com.
1b) This still invalidates any assumption that the boars were at most 6 months old. Another AI response:
Male pigs (boars) typically reach sexual maturity and maximum androgen (testosterone) levels around 6 to 8 months of age. Details: - Sexual maturity in male pigs usually occurs between 5 and 8 months, depending on breed, nutrition, and management. - Maximum androgen levels (primarily testosterone) tend to peak around 6 to 8 months, coinciding with full maturation of the testes and reproductive system. - After this peak, testosterone levels may stabilize or slightly decline but remain sufficient to maintain reproductive function.
2) As you should know by now, this is not true, and in any case, blaming Houlihan doesn't cure WA/AIU's incomplete rebuttal of Houlihan's maintained claim to the AIU, creating room for skepticism of the CAS decisions which relied on incomplete evidence.
3) Prof. McGlone's concession undermines the CAS finding, creating room for skepticism.
Does tradingeconomics.com by any chance show how farming practices were altered?
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
Maybe you should also expand your knowledge and watch a documentary on industrial butcher houses so you might understand that this unicorn boar with synthetic nandrolone you speak of would, besides not being a cow, also be mixed in with hundreds of other regular non doping pigs.
I don't ever speak of unicorn boar with synthetic nandrolone, but I'll be happy if you can provide me the link.
Wait - this is big news. Do you really have evidence that that statement is wrong? Since when? And which other "pieces of pig" did the food truck buy, from where, and why was that never mentioned before?
Houlihan provided only evidence for butt (meat) and stomach (outer stomach muscle aka meat) as pieces of pig bought by the food truck
Wait - this is big news. Do you really have evidence that that statement is wrong? Since when? And which other "pieces of pig" did the food truck buy, from where, and why was that never mentioned before?
Houlihan provided only evidence for butt (meat) and stomach (outer stomach muscle aka meat) as pieces of pig bought by the food truck
Let's start with the full quote, shall we?
fghhgf wrote:
2) As you know, Houlihan provided only evidence for butt (meat) and stomach (outer stomach muscle aka meat) as pieces of pig bought by the food truck - for offal and chorizo alike. Therefore "meat literature" is the relevant one.
I see many things are wrong.
- After correcting the claim many times (and for several years), what he states is not "as I know".
- I know the "food truck" didn't buy anything. It's a truck.
- I don't know if Houlihan's search for evidence was meant to cover both "offal and chorizo alike".
- I know that the CAS also heard evidence for "grease", (significant given Prof. McGlone's testinony on "fat"), and saw evidence for "chorizo (pork sausage)" as one of the pork stomach burritos served that day. "Fat" and "chorizo (pork sausage)" are also pieces of pig.
- Given the claim maintained to the AIU was "pig offal" and "a burrito ... containing pork offal", I am unpersuaded that "meat literature" is the relevant one. On the contrary, it seems willfully misleading.