Shelby making 10000 record attempt at the Ten

It's very interesting how you keep arguing about this. Yet, long story short, we have only been shown that the food truck owners bought stomach and butt.

How they made offal and chorizo? Well, your arguing aside, the evidence says, from stomach and butt.

Who says they bought fat from a pig? Houlihan only said, the 🌯 was greasy.

There is no evidence that says chorizo was made from stomach and butt, or that anyone "made" offal. This is novel fan fiction.

The pork fat is included in the meat, stomach, chorizo, and any other offal contained in the pork stomach burritos.

The point remains that the AIU only partially addressed Houlihan's claim.

In your weird obsession with Houlihan's case you write as though you were there the night at the burrito truck and you saw what she ate and you knew what was its contents. But you weren't present. You know no more about it than what happens on the dark side of the moon. CAS politely listened to her story but effectively dismissed it as such because it didn't stack up. It was just a story. You bought it hook line and sinker because you will always support the dopers. They are always unfairly accused, railroaded to a ban, and never intentional. Fortunately, antidoping and virtually everyone else knows better than you.

Rekrunner has done a whole phd in burritos and the meats following Shelby's conviction, it is his lifelong obsession to clear her name.

Hahaha yes, that's how he found the elusive evidence that the food truck owners purchased chorizo (instead of making it like all the other food trucks and restaurants) and pork fat (as if their burritos weren't greasy enough).

Too bad that Dr. Rekster figured out that the evidence exists but cannot be shown to us mere mortals, including WA + AIU + USADA + CAS + BG. Houlihan is in on it, which why she pretended to Gault that it was a stomach burrito. Hush - I have said too much already.

This looks like a stronger argument to dismiss everyone else who wasn't there that night -- you, Profs. Ayotte and McGlone, the AIU, WA, and the CAS.

I wasn't talking about Houlihan's story, but about the evidence available to the AIU, according to the CAS, and how the expert witnesses for the WA/AIU inexplicably ignored some of the evidence in their partial "rebuttal" to Houlihan's claim.

Was there evidence that this food truck made chorizo, and furthermore, made it from pork butt and stomach, excluding all other edible parts of the pig?

This seems more like wishful self-serving thinking on your part, detached from any reality.

The evidence I found about grease, fat, and chorizo came straight out of the CAS report.

There is no evidence that the food truck owners bought chorizo, grease, or fat, no matter how you deflect and twist and spin the facts.

There is evidence that the food truck owners bought stomach and butt. No spinning, those are plain facts.

Therefore, stomach—as the only pork organ proven to have been bought—was rebutted. Very convincingly so. Very explicable to anyone with a brain. No one protested against that during the hearing, not Houlihan, not her $$$$$ lawyer, not her so-called "experts" from Europe. No one protested against that in front of the Supreme Court either. For obvious reasons, as explained to you over and over again.

But, here we are, and it's still "inexplicable" to you, and only you. Looks like you will never understand.

Fortunately CAS is interested in facts, not in your unique spinning, rekster.

The experts before CAS didn't need to be at a burrito truck that night. They properly based their views on the evidence presented before the court, not a dubious and likely concocted story by a doper that failed to meet the standard of probability. But you buy the story because you want to believe it.

There is also no evidence that they received chorizo, grease, or fat as gifts. Or that they stole them.

I'll concede that the AIU's expert witnesses did rebut stomach, and meat, but I'm still waiting for the rest of the rebuttal of Houlihan's full claim to the AIU of "pig offal", or "a burrito containing ... pork offal".

Surely a chorizo pork stomach burrito would have chorizo (pork sausage) in the burrito? You need to see an invoice first? And surely a greasy burrito contains fat. If the fat was in the pork meat/offal, there would be no separate invoice, itemizing out the fat that is inherent to these pork parts.

It's kind of a weird way to look at it, if I'm being honest.

It also seems to miss the larger point. Does the WA/AIU make a strong, evidence based, scientifically valid case, for exogenous doping?

For many reasons, I'm not looking too much at what Houlihan failed to prove -- both WADA and the CAS know that the task of establishing the source of banned substances is difficult, if not impossible, burden. Not much can be concluded either way about guilt or innocence by a failure to meet the required evidentiary standard of establishing the more likely than not source.

If we accept for arguments sake, that the nandrolone was not ingested by burrito, the next step would be to evaluate the strength of the arguments for other possible alternative sources, with a similar level of scrutiny that Houlihan's claim has received.

This is a necessary step in order to establish that the nandrolone came from an exogenous source, beyond the standard of baseless presumption.

The CAS may be interested in facts, as we all should be, but their hands were tied by a series of presumptions baked into the WADA Code, that permit team WA/AIU and their experts to provide opinions and conclusions without facts.

The evidence they relied on was ambiguous and inconclusive.

The CAS based most of their findings, including "doping" and "intent", on presumptions, and questionably valid assumptions.

I don't so much buy Houlihan's story, but it was the only one on the CAS menu. No alternative story was submitted to any scrutiny.